The Battle of Cable Street

The road to Cable Street

On Sunday 4  October 1936, a march through East London led by Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists (BUF) was disrupted by anti-fascist counterdemonstrators. The BUF supported fascism, a far-right movement that believed some groups were superior to others. They also supported the use of violence against people who opposed their ideas.

The BUF intended to parade through areas with significant Jewish populations but were stopped by a coalition of working men and women, Jewish people, dockers and immigrants. The Battle of Cable Street, as these events are often referred to, has developed an almost mythic status, representing the East End’s clear rejection of fascism. It is commemorated with a plaque and mural on walls along Cable Street.

Records at The National Archives show a more nuanced picture. They indicate attempts to ban the fascist demonstration as well as advice from left wing and Jewish groups encouraging counterdemonstrators to avoid the march. Our records also show a spike in support for the BUF in East London in the immediate aftermath of The Battle of Cable Street.

The BUF had developed a significant but notorious profile throughout the mid-1930s, even if it had failed to gather any electoral success, due to their extremist actions.

For example, protestors at a BUF meeting in June 1934 were brutally beaten by the group. Additionally, street attacks on communists and Jewish people were committed regularly and continued until 1936.

The BUF intended to celebrate this summer campaign on 4 October through a march and meetings in Shoreditch, Limehouse, Bow and Bethnal Green. Some of the group’s members openly declared that the march was a pogrom (targeted attack) on East London’s Jewish communities.

Opposition to the march

The upcoming march motivated action from the local community. In the week leading up to it a group of East End mayors firmly asked the Home Secretary Sir John Simon to ban it, with the Mayor of Stepney claiming that a march:

To THE RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SIMON, P.C.

H.M. Secretary for Home Affairs.

WE, the undersigned citizens of East London, view with grave concern the proposed march of the British Union of Fascists upon East London. The avowed object of the Fascist movement in Great Britain is the incitement of malice and hatred against sections of the population.

It aims to further ends which seek to destroy the harmony and goodwill which has existed for centuries among the East London population, irrespective of differences in race and creed.

We consider racial incitement by a movement which employs flagrant distortion of truth and degrading calumny and vilification as a direct and deliberate provocation to malicious attack.

We therefore make an earnest appeal to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to prohibit such marches and thus retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London's population.

In the two days prior to the march the Jewish People’s Council collected an impressive 100,000 signatures to protest their ‘grave concern’. The petition expressed their fear that the ‘avowed object of the Fascist movement in Great Britain is the incitement of malice and hatred against sections of the population’. The petition ultimately asked the Home Secretary to prohibit such marches to unite and protect the community.

JEWISH PEOPLE’S COUNCIL

AGAINST FASCISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM.

NON POLITICAL

164 Commercial Road, E.1.

30th September 1936

The Right Hon. Sir John Simon, P.C.

H.M. Secretary of State for Home Affairs.

Dear Sir,

The Jewish People’s Council is earnestly desirous for permission to have a deputation wait upon you in regard to the proposed British Union of Fascists march in East London on Sunday 4th October.

As a large organisation with a specialised knowledge of conditions prevailing in East London at the moment (resultant upon recent Fascist agitation in the Area), we are most anxious to assist the Authorities in maintaining peace and order.

We propose that our deputation be received by you on Friday, 2nd prox. at 11.30 a.m. when a petition supported by 100,000 signatures obtained within 2 days, expressing the feelings of East London’s population in the matter of the proposed march, will be presented.

The deputation is in the position to support the petition by a reasoned statement, and it is our sincere hope, therefore, that in the interest of law and order you will accept the deputation from the Jewish People’s Council.

The deputation will be led by James Hall, M.P. for Whitechapel and St. Georges, supported by A. M. Wall, Secretary of the London Trades Council, Father J. Groser of Christ Church, Watney Street, Stepney, E.1. and representatives of the Jewish People’s Council.

Yours faithfully,

J. Pearce

Organising Secretary.

Different publications took radically different positions in the days leading up to the march. The Jewish Chronicle issued a warning on the Saturday before the march urging Jewish people to keep away and going as far as to state:

'They shall not pass'

The march went ahead with Sir Phillip Game, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, leading the policing of the event. The initial route was meant to see marchers’ parade down Commercial Street towards the East End.

This was prevented by a huge crowd of anti-fascist demonstrators who blocked the intersection of Whitechapel High Street and Leman Street. A report in the Illustrated London News suggested a crowd of 100,000 counterdemonstrators was present. Although figures published at the time are now contested, they were significant and strongly outnumbers the fascists. Due to this the police advised a new route via Cable Street towards Stepney.

On the new route, marchers continued to face pushback. On Cable Street, counterdemonstrators had overturned a brick-carrying truck to create a barricade. At the same time, they used the rallying cry ‘¡No pasarán!’ (meaning ‘they shall not pass’), which was commonly used by Spanish Republicans during this period.

Stones and insults were also hurled, and Irish immigrant dockers who lived on the street joined in to stop the march moving forward. Following conversations between Game and Mosley, the fascists agreed to abandon the planned route and turned west towards the Embankment.

Contrary to popular belief, much of the direct confrontation was not between the marchers and counterdemonstrators, but between the counterdemonstrators and the police. Children rolled marbles to make police horses fall over, and stones and insults were thrown towards the line of police officers trying to keep the two sides separated.

This can be seen in an anonymised list of arrests which shows that of the 85 people arrested only six were fascists. The most common charges were insulting words and behaviour and obstructing police. A few were charged with the more serious crimes of grievous bodily harm and wilful damage. Interestingly, among the arrests were eight women and two children.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Phillip Game’s, account of the Battle of Cable Street

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

The aftermath of Cable Street

Despite the iconic status of these demonstrations as a triumph over fascism, in the wake of Cable Street the BUF’s membership increased. A report on the BUF notes that, by 27 October 1936, membership had increased by a little over 2,000. Most of these new members were from East End branches.

Following the march and the violence of Cable Street, politicians and officials looked at ways to reduce the likelihood of similar events taking place again. The Public Order Bill was quickly developed, coming into law as The Public Order Act, in the beginning of January 1937. Among other things, the Act restricted the use of stewards at open air meetings and ensured that police had the power to ban marches or alter routes. It also outlawed the wearing of political uniforms.

Among the banned uniforms were the black shirts of the British Union of Fascists. The BUF did not publicly disagree with the ruling, reiterating their ‘desire at all times to conform with the law of the land’ (catalogue reference: MEPO 3/2513). They did argue, however, that the police would not be able to ban the wearing of ‘an ordinary shirt of black colour with a black tie under an ordinary suit’.

British Union of Fascists and National Socialists

Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, Westminster, S.W.1.

1 January, 1937.

Sir,

I thank you for your letter of the 31st December, and note that you are "not prepared to express an opinion" on the wearing of an ordinary shirt of black colour with a tie under an ordinary suit. I further note your statement that a Blackshirt is a "garment which has for some time past symbolised association with a political organisation" and beg to point out that the word employed in the Act is not "garment" but "uniform" and that on the legal interpretation of the latter word the whole issue rests.

Pursuant to the advice in your letter of the 24th December we advised our members to discontinue wearing the Blackshirt uniform. Before advising them to adopt any distinctive mark which might show adherence to our Organisation we sought your opinion upon the legality of wearing an ordinary shirt of black colour with a tie under an ordinary suit. We need not remind you that such shirts can be bought in any shop, and have been worn for long past by some members of the public in no way associated with this organisation.

We sought your opinion in order to prevent what might prove to be a widespread infringement of the law should the Courts later hold that such a shirt was in fact a uniform and, therefore, illegal.

The fact that you did not see your way to give an opinion made it necessary for us to transmit our Counsel's advice to our members and leaves the responsibility for any infringement of the law upon the Home Office.

Yours faithfully,

N. Francis-Hawkins
Director General of Organisation

To:
Commissioner of Police,
New Scotland Yard, S.W.1.

Archives and collective memory

The Battle of Cable Street signifies an important point in inter-war British history, when far-right political extremism was confronted on the streets of East London. While some claim that the immediate success of the coalition of anti-fascists has been overstated, memories of the event carry their own importance. The archival evidence allows us to re-engage with historical events and investigate their nuances. However, it is local community action and activity that decides how those events are remembered.

Explore the records used in this story

• From our collection

  HO 144/21060

  Title

  Home Office notes on disturbances by the BUF

  Date

  9 June – 3 October 1936

• From our collection

  ZPER 34/189

  Title

  Illustrated London News

  Date

  July – December 1936

• From our collection

  HO 144/21061

  Title

  Home Office notes on disturbances by the BUF

  Date

  13 October 1936 – 19 October 1936

• From our collection

  MEPO 3/2513

  Title

  Notes on the Public Order Act and the definitions of political uniforms

  Date

  1936 – 1937