Michael Quinlan, Margaret Gardner and Peter Akers | A Failure of Voluntarism: Shop Assistants and the Struggle to Restrict Trading Hours in the Colony of Victoria, 1850–85 | Labour History, 88

A Failure of Voluntarism: Shop Assistants and the Struggle to Restrict Trading Hours in the Colony of Victoria, 1850–85

Michael Quinlan, Margaret Gardner and Peter Akers^*

The struggle over shop trading hours is a significant but neglected component of the nineteenth century working-hours debate. This struggle involved a wide array of workers and their organisations, including journeymen bakers and butchers as well as shop assistants (such as drapers' assistants and grocers' assistants). For these workers, hours of labour were dictated by the trading hours of establishments they worked in, alternate sources of supply (in the case of self-employed meat, bread and milk carters) and the lowest common denominator of retailer competition. This study focuses on shop assistants, by far the largest group involved in the early-closing movement, in the colony of Victoria. The study highlights the failure of self-regulation or voluntarism advocated by the Early Closing Movement, the close intersection of commercial controls with social protection and divisions within capital/employers (especially between small and large firms). The repeated and conspicuous failure of the voluntary compliance or persuasion-based approach over 30 years set the scene for a campaign to regulate trading hours in the early 1880s. This campaign yielded success with the enactment of early-closing provisions within the Victorian Factories and Shops Act in 1885 — a pioneering piece of legislation within the British Empire.

The Early Closing Movement — Largely Lost to History

In the nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century attempts to limit hours of work were an important mobilising point for labour in countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. Craft unions in the Australian colonies (including those erecting the first parliamentary building in Victoria) secured an eight-hour day in the 1850s — arguably the first workers in the world to achieve this feat through collective action. Spreading to other workers, the eight-hour movement provided a critical impetus for the development of union peak councils. Another dimension of the struggle to limit working hours was the campaign to limit shop-trading hours, generally known as the early-closing movement. This movement embraced workers whose working hours were largely determined by shop-trading hours including shop assistants (such as drapers' assistants, grocers' assistants, chemists' assistants) as well as journeymen bakers, butchers and milk vendors.

It has been suggested¹ that early closing originated in the United Kingdom as 'black-coated workers' emulated the ten hours day movement of factory operatives, with the first Early Closing Association being established in 1842.² In the absence of any agreement or law on trading hours, for these workers a ten-hour workday would have represented a major gain. For much of the nineteenth century shops in the Australian colonies typically traded six days a week, closing at 10.00pm (or later) on weekdays and 7.00–8.00pm on Saturday. The trading hours of shops in Britain were at least as long, with many assistants living on the premises (less common in Australia) in cramped, unsanitary conditions (having to endure poor food and being 'turned out' on Sunday).³ Accommodating workers enhanced employers' capacity to insist on long hours and suitable modes of behaviour (intrusive and arbitrary disciplinary codes were common in the UK and there is evidence of their use in Australia).⁴ Despite widespread sympathy and recognition of their plight (including the adverse health effects)⁵ numerous attempts by retail workers to negotiate short hours failed. Retail workers lacked the industrial strength to compel compliance in such a competitive industry. This article traces the struggle by shop assistants and other retail workers to restrict trading hours in the colony of Victoria from 1850 until a statutory mechanism for regulating trading hours was secured in 1885.

Early closing and the regulation of trading hours have received scant attention from social, labour and legal historians.⁶ As with the eight hours movement, in Britain and Australasia a number of contemporary activists wrote detailed accounts of early closing.⁷ However, while subsequent academic 'charting' of Australian labour history recognised the pivotal role of the eight-hour day movement, early closing became little more than a footnote. More recently early closing has received recognition amongst those studying sweating, shop assistants or early female labour activists like Emma Miller.⁸

The neglect of early closing is difficult to justify, although it should be seen in the context of an apparent reluctance of historians to provide detailed accounts of struggles over substantive working conditions (including the eight-hour day).⁹ In terms of numbers of workers involved (including large numbers of women) and substantial changes to working conditions, early closing represented one of the most significant industrial struggles in nineteenth/early-twentieth century Australia, Britain and other countries like New Zealand. The early-closing movement did not entail much use of strikes but it did involve other forms of collective action (including pledges, bans/pickets, marches/demonstrations, and petitions/deputations). Nor was it confined to shop assistants (although they constituted the largest group involved). A number of trades, most notably butchers and bakers, were also conspicuous advocates of early closing because their working hours were tied to trading hours and collective efforts to negotiate ten-hour (let alone eight-hour) work days had repeatedly failed.

Early closing drew a broad alliance of workers, some shopkeepers, civic leaders, middle-class and feminist reformers (like Emma Miller in Queensland and Rose Scott in New South Wales), and community/religious groups.¹⁰ As such, the movement may not appear as direct a struggle between capital and labour as the eight-hours movement. This interpretation over-simplifies the eight-hours movement and ignores the fact that early closing became a key plank in the labour movement's political platform from the last quarter of the nineteenth century in Australia.¹¹ In his evidence to the Royal Commission on Employés in Shops in 1882 David Bennett, engineer and for many years secretary of the Eight Hours Anniversary Committee made several revealing comparisons with the eight-hour day movement. Like other unionists to give evidence (including Trades Hall Secretary, W.E. Murphy), Bennett supported the early-closing movement (notwithstanding periodic attacks on eight-hour men and their wives who shopped late). Bennett stated that the eight-hour day was secured by combination, but this followed earlier failed attempts (like the early-closing movement) to use moral suasion. Bennett saw early-closing legislation as essential due to the number of small traders without employees.¹² While he believed combination could secure an eight-hours objective where unions had the power he was aware of an Eight Hours Day Bill then before parliament.¹³ This Bill was by no means unique. Rather, there were repeated attempts to legislate for an eight-hour day (to strengthen and extend its coverage) in the Australian colonies in the last quarter of the nineteenth century — something too often overlooked.¹⁴

It is possible to make some general observations about the relative importance of the early-closing movement by utilising a database on worker organisation. Over the past ¹⁵ years we have been constructing a database of worker organisation in Australia in the period 1788 to 1900.15 The database records every organisation (including failed attempts) as well as their scope and activities (membership, strikes and other forms collective action, petitioning, deputations, mass meetings, demonstrations etc), drawing on a range of sources including contemporary newspapers, union and government records. At the time of writing, the database contained entries for almost 3,000 organisations, representing records relating to all Australian colonies in the period to 1850 and the almost complete records for three of the six Australian colonies (Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia) for the period 1851 to 1900. This is a substantial part of the total data set. On the basis of the 1788–1850 period, as well as perusing records relating the three remaining colonies (New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia), there is no reason to believe it is unrepresentative of the total population of unionate organisations in Australia.

This database enables us to make a number of general observations about the early-closing movement. First, shortening working hours via early closing (including half holidays) was the predominant basis for organisation amongst shop assistants in the nineteenth century. Indeed, organisation of shop assistants working in draperies, grocery and department stores is dominated by this single issue to a degree that is distinctive if not unique compared to other groups of workers. The same applies to milk, bread and butchers' carters as well as journeymen butchers and bakers in so far as they worked in small establishments selling to the public (as distinct from those working in factories). By way of comparison, the database indicates that hours of work were a formal objective for 28.3 per cent of unions as a whole (though this includes bodies where there is little or no information on their objectives). Wages/remuneration were a formal objective of 870 bodies (or 34.8 per cent) with other objectives being health and safety (399 or 13.5 per cent), jobs/employment security (364 or 12.3 per cent), working conditions (340 or 11.5 per cent), unionism (297 or 10.1 per cent), mutual insurance (286 or 9.7 per cent), apprenticeship (171 or 5.8 per cent), subcontracting (103 or 3.5 per cent), racial exclusion (93 or 3.2 per cent), conciliation and arbitration (85 or 2.9 per cent), and gender exclusion (22 or 0.75 per cent).

Second, by a series of measures it can be seen that retail worker organisation focused around early closing constituted a significant component of worker mobilisation in the nineteenth century. Classified by occupation, the database identified 320 associations of retail workers (some informal), a number only exceeded by miners (322) and seamen (460 — much of this short-lived and ship-specific collective activity). Organisation by retail workers ranks well ahead of all other occupations, the next largest numbers being railway labourers/navvies (201), rural labourers (114), engine drivers (90), carpenters (84), railway workers (84) and printers (75). Comparing, the number of unions by occupations might be regarded as misleading because it fails to take account of the minute splintering of unions amongst some occupational groups, especially crafts. Classifying unions by industry arguably avoids this problem and breakdowns from the database reinforce the importance of collective organisation amongst retail workers. Classified by industry the database includes 248 retail-based worker associations (some informal). This constitutes the sixth largest number of unions by industry. It is only exceeded by maritime (539 associations but again many confined to individual ships); building and construction (514); road and rail transport (376); mining (361) and food, alcohol and beverage manufacturing (249) and it is well ahead of industries like government services (197) and metal manufacturing (138). Taken as whole, the database suggests retail industry unions constituted 7.8 per cent of all unions established by Australian workers in the nineteenth century — a figure likely to surprise many labour historians and in no way reflected in labour historiography.

Third, union numbers-based measures of worker mobilisation may be distorted by large variations in membership levels between unions in different industries and occupations. The database includes membership figures for individual unions, though these are admittedly fragmentary due to sporadic way such information was reported prior to the commencement of official statistics in the early-twentieth century. Given gaps in the data, union membership by industry was simply totaled for the entire period and then compared to provide a rough guide to worker mobilisation. This indicated that retailing industry unions ranked fifth in terms of total union membership (after mining, building and construction, road and rail transport and maritime and ahead of clothing manufacture, printing, rural/agriculture and government). Of course this ranking takes no account of variations in the volatility or stability of union membership between different industries that may affect the capacity of unions to exert influence or mount campaigns. Retail industry union membership constitutes about 3.5 per cent of total union membership figures for the period 1788 to 1900. This figure arguably understates the importance of retail industry union membership because an unexplained quirk in the database is that mining industry union membership is far better reported than other groups (thereby constituting over 40 per cent of all union membership). While the mining industry was a bastion of union membership in the nineteenth century, it was not nearly as important as these figures would suggest. If mining is excluded, the retail industry accounts for 6.5 per cent of union membership. Taking the mid-point of the lower and upper figures (ie 5 per cent) means that retail workers accounted for one twentieth of workers who mobilised in Australia during the nineteenth century.

Fourth, another indicator of the importance of retail unions may be discerned by examining the modes of collective action they undertook. In terms of strikes, retail industry unions only account for 11 of 1,320 strikes currently recorded in the database for the period 1788 to 1900. However, examining other forms of collective action (making demands, mass meetings, demonstrations, the imposition of bans etc) alters the situation dramatically. Of 2,411 'non-strike' collective acts recorded, retail industry worker associations account for 241 or almost 10 per cent. The only industries involved in more 'non-strike' collective action were food, alcohol and beverage production; road and rail transport; and maritime/seamen. Of course these numbers take no account of variations in the number of workers involved. But here too, the database suggests that activity involving retail workers were not smaller on average than disputes in other industries, quite the reverse. The fragmentary reporting of actual number of workers involved in disputes means this comparison needs to be treated with caution. A more reliable measure (in terms of the database) is the number of establishments involved in disputes. This indicates that for unions as a whole 1,020 'non-strike' disputes (42.3 per cent of the total) were confined to a single workplace, 608 involved more than one establishment, 486 involved all employers (by industry) in a town or region, 286 were colony wide and 11 were inter-colonial. In contrast, for the retail industry single establishment disputes were uncommon, with multi-establishment and town/region disputes being the norm (the latter account for well over half all retail disputes).

Most notably perhaps, retailing accounts for almost 30 per cent of all hours-related 'non-strike' disputes (806) for the nineteenth century. All but a handful of disputes involving shop assistants concerned early closing whereas, for the union movement as whole, hours of work was an issue in only one third (33.4 per cent) of disputes. As might be expected, wages/remuneration were the single most important issue in 'non-strike' disputes (accounting for 1,077 or almost half). Nonetheless, 'non-strike' collective action addressed a wide range of issues. Other important issues included working conditions (an issue in 435 disputes) unionism (432 disputes) jobs/employment security (256 disputes), management (253 disputes), work-methods (200 disputes), legislation (63 disputes), subcontracting (58 disputes) and unknown (148 disputes). It should be noted that the figures total more than 2,411 because many disputes involve more than one issue. In sum, industrial action by retail industry workers was narrowly focused and early closing was the absolutely pivotal for their mobilisation.

Fifth, in addition to industrial action, throughout the nineteenth century-unions tried to influence the policies of government (shire/municipal and colony/state) to protect jobs or improve working conditions, including seeking statutory limits to trading or working hours. Methods of doing this included sending petitions/memorials/letters to government authorities as well as deputations or arranging conferences with ministers and the like, with the latter (deputations/conferences) gradually assuming greater importance as workers became better organised. Of 381 petitions/correspondence to ministers recorded in the database, 67 or 17.6 per cent emanated from retail industry workers, a number exceeding all other industries — the next highest being government (57), mining (52), road and rail transport (48), building and construction (40) and maritime (32). The situation with regard to deputations and meetings with ministers is similar. Of the 523 deputations and conferences with ministers recorded in the database, 65 or 12.4 per cent emanated from retail industry worker organisations, a number only exceeded by road and rail transport unions (with 115). These differences are partly explained by the inability of industrially weak groups like retail and government workers (responsible for 42 deputations/conferences) to use other methods like strikes. However, it should be recognised that even more powerful groups of unionised workers used these methods (building and construction, mining and metal manufacturing accounting for 52, 44 and 38 deputations respectively).

The vast majority of these retail industry petitions and deputations concerned early closing. For retail industry unions, petitions and deputations became an increasingly important tool as they turned away from 'moral suasion' to seeking legislatively mandated closing times. They also turned to other means of exerting pressure on politicians including surveying the position/exacting pledges from parliamentary members and backing candidates committed to early closing at both municipal and colony level.

In sum, the database provides strong evidence that the pursuit of early closing by retail workers constituted a significant industrial and later political mobilisation in the second half of the nineteenth century. It was significant in terms of the number of unions, the number of workers involved and the level of collective industrial and political activity relative to the labour movement as a whole. It was also of great significance in terms of the issue being contested — significance that can be measured by the ramifications of the outcomes for the lives of workers and its capacity to draw public attention. Illustrating the latter, a street parade marking the inauguration of a Thursday half holiday in Geelong in 1883 drew a crowd of 7,000 — a considerable proportion of the town's population and matching eight-hour day celebrations at this time.

The remainder of this article will examine the early-closing campaign in the colony of Victoria between 1850 and 1885 — a period where repeated unsuccessful attempts at 'moral suasion' finally gave way to a campaign for legislation to mandate closing times.

The Failure of Voluntarism: Early-Closing Efforts in Victoria 1850–81

The early-closing movement began in the Australian colonies in the mid-1840s in the wake of similar campaigns in the United Kingdom. As such, it predated the eight-hours movement in the colonies by about a decade. However, while the eight-hours movement achieved fairly rapid inroads and some relatively sustained gains (at least amongst better organised craft workers) the early-closing movement achieved little more than partial and short-term successes until late in the nineteenth century.

The first attempts at early closing in the colonies were initiated amongst assistant drapers in the major towns of South Australia, NSW and Van Dieman's Land/Tasmania (notably Adelaide, Sydney, Hobart and Launceston). Notwithstanding some victories (of limited duration except for Hobart) it was only from the 1850s that the movement gained momentum, spawning a large number of organisations (most short-lived) in major cities, towns and (later) regional centres.

In a pattern similar to that pertaining to unionate bodies more generally, small and generally short-lived organisations (exceptions include the Hobart Mercantile Assistants Association, 1847–55) gave way to larger and more stable organisations from the 1870s (at least in the major towns). However, few early closing and half-holiday associations achieved longevity, most collapsing in periodic economic downturns when competition amongst retailers became fierce. From the 1880s they also lost out to emerging occupation-specific and retail-industry unions. As single-issue bodies they could not represent other industrial interests (such as wages and job security) of retail workers.¹⁶ Nor could they easily remake themselves in this regard because a critical component of their strategy was to encourage participation by sympathetic employers and notable citizens — involvement that would have been jeopardised by the pursuit of other issues. For example in June 1876 a motion that the Melbourne Early Closing Association advocate that female shop assistants be allowed to sit at work was defeated because it was seen to 'interfere with the business' of the association.¹⁷ On occasion, employers keen to implement early closing assisted in association formation and maintenance (through funding). Locked into a single issue, the introduction of legislation prescribing shop trading hours from the mid-1880s onwards, effectively removed their raison d'être. Lack of continuity helps to explain why few ECA records (minute books, correspondence etc) appear to have survived¹⁸— undoubtedly another factor contributing to their neglect by historians. We were able to offset this paucity of documents because our database draws on the extensive reporting of worker activity in colonial newspapers — a valuable source if used cautiously.¹⁹

As an important aside, employer involvement may be seen to raise questions about the unionate status of many early-closing associations. However, while the Webbs' definition of unions 'as a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the conditions of their employment'²⁰ has an elegant simplicity, and their account of union growth and structure continues to exert a significant influence, worker organisation can only be understood once a broader and historically contingent array of collective activity is recognised.²¹ Not all worker organisations were permanent, not all were exclusively composed of wage earners (some included what would now be termed self-employed subcontractors) and organisation was shaped by the needs and capacity of particular workers. Mercantile assistants and other retail workers lacked the strategic bargaining power of craft workers. To exert any influence on their employers in pressing interest in shorter hours, they needed to form associations that could bind or cajole all shop-owners in a town or region (including those with few or no employees) to particular closing times. It was repeatedly shown that even a few dissenters would quickly destroy the system. The common rule is important to all attempts at collective organisation but in the competitive area of retailing it was arguably more critical than most given the substantial economic advantages accruing to those who stayed open when their rivals closed.

The early-closing movement in Victoria mirrored the pattern just described. The first attempt at early closing occurred in Melbourne in May 1850 when drapers' assistants persuaded 30 drapers to sign an agreement to close their shops at 7.00pm, Saturday excepted.²² This campaign set a pattern that was to be repeated over the next 30 years. It entailed letters to the press bemoaning long working hours and extolling the virtues of early closing (in terms of health, recreation, intellectual and moral development), letters to employers, public meetings and newspaper advertisement publicising retailers who had agreed to abide (including that reached in final agreement). The movement was linked to no formal organisation although there was talk of establishing a literary society. Like numerous others, the victory was short-lived. Just over a year later the first Melbourne Early Closing Association (ECA) was established at a meeting at the Temperance Hall in Russell Street.²³ The venue was no accidental selection. Unlike other types of worker organisations, which usually met in pubs, ECAs preferred temperance halls, coffee shops or public halls as meeting venues. This owed as much to the need to garner support from notable citizens and demonstrate the 'moral improvement' element in arguments for shorter hours as any sense of social superiority amongst shop workers. Several employers attended the inaugural meeting although one ECA activist named Nash warned assistants not to rely on shopkeepers in promoting their cause. By early October 1851, 70 retailers agreed to close at 7.00pm.²⁴ However before the month was out there were reports of violations and a deputation was dispatched to try to persuade one firm (Cashmore) to abide by the agreement.²⁵ The Association maintained some level of compliance until May 1853 when widespread breaches led to its collapse.²⁶ An attempt to resuscitate the Association in December 1853 appears to have failed and another attempt at organisation in 1854 lasted only a month or two.²⁷

The pattern of short-lived organisations and sporadic success continued over the next decade. The database includes evidence of seven attempts at organisation in Melbourne between 1855 and 1865 (including the first mobilisations by grocers' and ironmongers' assistants) plus two attempts at organisation in Ballarat (see Table 1). No association lasted more than 12 months (most considerably less) or achieved much despite the support of leading public figures.²⁸ In October 1866 another body calling itself the Melbourne Early Closing Association (MECA) was established (inspired by the success of a similar campaign in Sydney) which rapidly trebled its membership (from 120) and survived until 1882.²⁹ It was succeeded by the Victorian Political Short Hours League (1885–86), which waged a successful campaign for legislative intervention, and then gave way to the Victorian Shop Employés Union (1886–92) also sometimes referred to colloquially as the Early Closing Association. Both the Short Hours League and the Shop Employés Union established branches in Melbourne suburbs and other regions of Victoria. While organisation consolidated in the 1880s, the demise of the Shop Employés Union in the depression of the early 1890s marked a return to more volatile organisation, which continued for the remainder of the decade. This accounts for the larger number of mostly short-lived organisations formed in Melbourne in the period 1890–99 (Table 1).

Table 1: Early Closing/Half Holiday Associations and Retail Worker Associations/Unions in Victoria by Period, 1850–99

	Early-closing/half-holiday associations in Melbourne region	Early-closing/half-holiday associations in other regions of Victoria	Occupation-specific associations or retail worker unions in Melbourne region	Occupation-specific associations or retail worker unions in other regions of Victoria
1850–59	4	1	3
1860–69	5	2	3*
1870–79	5	3	4	1
1880–89	5	2	16	4
1890–99	9	7	11	4

*Includes three occupation-specific (two grocers and one shoe dealer) half-holiday associations

Table 1 provides a summary of organisational activity in Victoria by decade. Branches of organisations are counted separately to give a better indication of the spread of organisation and because branches often had a lifecycle somewhat shorter than the parent body. As indicated in Table 1, from the 1870s organisation spread to regions outside Melbourne beginning with the major towns of Ballarat, Sandhurst/Bendigo and Geelong and then extending to smaller centres like Seymour, Sale, Cobram, Port Fairy and Maldon. The regional spread of early closing in Victoria is typical of the movement in Australia and elsewhere, and is indicative of its broader base of community support even in comparison to the eight-hours movement.

Paralleling the growth of early-closing associations was the formation of organisations representing particular subcategories of retail workers (drapers', grocers', ironmongers' and chemists' assistants; corn merchants' employees) and ultimately self-proclaimed unions of retail workers. This began in the 1850s but only gained momentum in the 1880s. Examples of the former (and known dates which should be taken as conservative given the patchy records) include the Hotham Grocers Assistants Union (1883), Grocers Assistants Union of Victoria (1884–86), Grocers Assistants Mutual Improvement Association of Victoria (1889) and the Victorian Grocers Employés Association (1900). Other examples include the Melbourne Chemists' Assistants Association (1883), Ballarat Drapers Assistants Union (1882), Melbourne and Collingwood Drapers Assistants League (1857) and the Drapers and Clothiers Assistants Association of Geelong (1889). Examples amongst smaller retail subgroups include the Melbourne Ironmongers Employés Association (1887), Victorian Hardware Assistants and Trade Association (1894–98) and the Ballarat Ironmongers Employés Association (1900). To these can be added informal associations or short-lived collectivities that didn't give rise to a union, association or society with formal rules etc. For example, Ballarat druggists and chemists assistants and Emerald Hill chemists and druggists assistants both secured agreements with their employers.³⁰

The first attempt at a general association of retail employees was the short-lived Melbourne Mercantile Employés Society (1872) followed by the Salesmens and Assistants Union of Victoria (1881–82), Victorian Shop Employés Union (1886–92), and the Victorian United Shop Assistants Association (1895–96). Again, there were a number of informal associations of retail workers, such as mass meetings of shop assistants in Bendigo, Maldon and Werribee in September 1896 and their Melbourne counterparts three months later.³¹ They were overwhelmingly concerned with early closing. Some were based on larger stores but most had a wider ranging membership. In sum, organisation amongst retail workers became substantial and relatively continuous in the 1880s. The 1890s depression saw a retreat but ongoing efforts at re-organisation during this decade forebode a recovery and extension of retail unionism in the next decade.

Prior to 1885 the early-closing movement in Victoria essentially undertook the same activities as its counterparts in other Australian colonies, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Associations were formed and through a mixture of letters to the press, meetings with employers, petitions/deputations and mass meetings tried to secure an agreement on early shop shutting (sometimes with seasonal variations). Though often initially successful, in part because many shop-owners were sympathetic (and some even helped in their genesis), agreements seldom lasted more than a season, a year or two (some collapsed within weeks) because a few employers broke ranks and this had a snowball effect. Defeat in a dispute or campaign usually spelled death to the early-closing or shop assistants' associations. Unlike other worker organisations (including unions of journeymen butchers and bakers that pursued early closing), they were single-issue bodies with no other function or goal (like mutual insurance or improved wages) to sustain them. The pursuit of employer collaboration by ECAs circumscribed their capacity to develop a range of activities to bolster their chances of institutional survival.

Even the conspicuous exception in terms of survival, the Melbourne Early Closing Association (1866–82), illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of the attempt to contain trading hours through negotiation with retailers and community pressure. Unlike many of its counterparts, the association made relatively little use of letters, petitions and pledges (published lists of employers 'signed up') to elicit community sympathy to its cause, putting more reliance on mass public meetings addressed by notable citizens and negotiations. There is evidence of 12 such mass meetings (most in the first decade of its existence) and 19 disputes over trading hours (more evenly spread).

The nature of these disputes and their outcomes is worth briefly recording. Between December 1866 and March 1867 MECA mounted a campaign for early closing across Melbourne that achieved at least partial success.³² In May 1867 it secured an agreement amongst St Kilda Road drapers — one firm almost immediately reneged.³³ Two years later (1869) it organised a long-running campaign, including a public rally attended by 1,000 persons, for employers to pay their workers early to support the early-closing/Saturday half-holiday movement. Paying workers as late as midday Saturday was seen to encourage late shopping by the families of workers.³⁴ Around the same time, the Association's committee reported an ongoing battle with retailers reneging on the early-closing agreement.³⁵ Four years later in April 1873 MECA organised a public meeting at the Melbourne Town Hall, securing the agreement of six firms to close early and 'promises' from several others.³⁶ In June the association renewed its campaign for early payment, enlisting the support of trade societies.³⁷ By December thousands of circulars on early closing had been distributed but the Age reported only a handful of firms had agreed to close at 6.00pm Saturday.³⁸ When outfitters' assistants sent a deputation to their employers in June 1874 MECA persuaded them to join its ranks although a letter from 'A Hater of Shams' in the same issue of the Age alleged there was widespread evasion of the existing agreement.³⁹ A renewed campaign for early closing in December again yielded disappointing results, with two large drapery firms agreeing to close at 9.00pm on Saturday while two others agreed to close at 11.00pm! In an editorial, the Age attributed the movement's scant success to the voluntary principle and a lack of customer support.⁴⁰

In the first half of 1875 MECA initiated a concerted campaign to implement 7.00pm weekday and 10.00pm Saturday closing in the suburbs of Collingwood and Fitzroy. It sent deputations to interview leading employers, organised public rallies at the Forresters Hall in Smith St and Emerald Hill, and 'arranged' supporting letters to the press from writers with pseudonyms such as 'Fair Play'.⁴¹ There is no evidence as to the campaign's success, although a campaign in Richmond the following year secured the support of leading drapers and grocers.⁴² The inability of MECA to enforce agreements was highlighted in January 1877 after it criticised the firm of Brodie, Conder and Turner for closing late in the press. When the company took umbrage at this, the association's committee resolved not to pursue the matter in the hope the company would change its mind.⁴³ In September the association renewed its campaign with the usual mixture of public rallies (including one at the Anatheaum attended by leading citizens and chaired by Justice Fellows) and posters. A letter from 'Pro Bono Publico' expressed doubt as to the value of the latter.⁴⁴

In 1878 increased attention was directed to achieving a Thursday half-holiday (rather than Saturday following a lack of success in part due to the late payment of workers as well as the needs of country residents traveling to Melbourne).⁴⁵ MECA issued handbills and even a book explaining early closing. Again, however, it was at best a partial victory. Drapers and bootmakers in Richmond and Carlton conceded (but not other groups) and by the end of the year it was necessary to renew agitation to prevent a relapse.⁴⁶ In 1879 attention returned to Saturday as the preferred half holiday. In June the Association sent a deputation to Robertson and Moffat after the firm determined to take down its shutters on Saturday afternoon. In response Moffat claimed the shutters were down for advertising purposes and the shop would remain shut.⁴⁷ In July and again in December MECA took action to counter breaches; distributing handbills, issuing posters and arranging 'attractions' to draw visitors away from shops.⁴⁸ The Age observed that depression in trade had put retailers under pressure leading to job losses and causing some assistants to abandon agitation. In noted that others enjoyed the benefits without subscribing to MECA and alleged the high salary paid to the association's secretary was a source of dissent.⁴⁹ The theme about 'free riders' was repeated in a renewed campaign in June 1880.⁵⁰

The MECA mounted another early-closing campaign in Carlton with public meetings and a demonstration led by a fire engine.⁵¹ However, largely attended rallies could not disguise the fact that MECA's agreements could not be sustained even after repeated campaigns. This was also the experience of associations formed in other towns in the colony such as Ballarat. Among those attending the Carlton demonstration was H. Turnbull, president of the Salesmens and Assistants Union of Victoria. The union was formed in March 1881 to provide stronger alternative to MECA's 'lukewarm' approach on behalf of male and female (referred to as 'girls') shop assistants.⁵² From April to September 1881 the union launched an aggressive campaign for closing 7.00pm weekdays and 10.00pm Saturday. It involved numerous public meetings, the establishment of a supporting Ladies Committee and distributing 10,000 copies of its own newspaper the Early Closer and Salesmen's Advocate.⁵³ Frustrated at the limited response, in October the union affiliated to the Melbourne Trades Hall and began to seriously pursue the legislative option.

Mandating Trading Hours: the Campaign for Legislation in Victoria, 1881–85

Using legislation on trading hours to overcome the weakness of voluntary agreements was not a new idea in the Australian colonies or the UK. In November 1846 the London Times had observed:

an Act of Parliament would be the most short and certain mode of effecting the proposed object. It would be universal in its operation. It would admit no partial exceptions or favourtisms. It would be binding on all. It would be, we think, desired by all who hope to be benefited by the change. A master who, out of spite, obstinancy or the spirit of martyrdom, would kick at a speech, or remain obdurate to a sermon, would bow before the majesty of the law. There is more eloquence in a tiny penal clause imposing a fine of £5 than the graceful benevolence of Lord John Manners or the historical resumes of Dr Vaughan ... Let the young men and women ... appeal to Parliament to ratify by its fiat that principle which should be the boast and the mission of every Legislature — to protect the poor from contumely and the weak from oppression.⁵⁴

Despite these prescient observations, reliance on 'moral suasion' occupied much of the remainder of the century (and then some) in the UK and other jurisdictions.⁵⁵ The colony of Victoria was the first to attempt regulation.

In the same year (1881) that the Salesmens and Assistants Union efforts failed the member for Carlton (J. Gardiner) presented an Employés in Shops Bill to the Victorian Legislative Assembly that would compel shopkeepers (tobacconists, fruiterers and a number of other groups excepted) to close by 7.00pm on weekdays and 10.00pm on Saturday. At its second reading the Bill was referred to a Select Committee that was subsequently transformed into a Royal Commission on Employés in Shops. As Parsons has observed, the radical side of parliament dominated the Commission membership (the members were W. Collard Smith, chair, Alfred Deakin, John Woods, G. Wilson Hall, J. Gardiner, James Munro and William Anderson).⁵⁶ Aside from Gardiner (who had also introduced an Eight Hours Bill in 1883), commission members such as Anderson had readily leant their support to worker causes and deputations in the past.

During 1882–83 the Commission undertook lengthy deliberations on early closing, interviewing well over a 100 witnesses (employers, managers, workers, union officials and medical practitioners) in Melbourne, Ballarat and Bendigo.⁵⁷ Officeholders of the Salesmens and Assistants Union including secretary (Robert Towart) and treasurer (Frederick Smith) argued moral suasion had failed and legislation was essential because shopkeepers could never reach universal or binding agreement.⁵⁸ Their views were supported officers of other unions, such as Edward Williams, secretary of the Ballarat Butchers Association.⁵⁹ In an observation that was to prove prescient (given the approach adopted in the first Act), ex-vice president of the Salesmens and Assistants Union, William Virtue, expressed the view that giving districts the right to decide on the implementation of the legislation would prove abortive.⁶⁰ The only note of ambivalence was struck by John Curtis, secretary of the now declining MECA, who conceded the limited success of moral suasion but said he didn't favour legislation even though he believed it was the only way short-hours would become a rule in the suburbs and small shops.⁶¹ His ambivalent stance, however, reflected a debate within MECA about abandoning moral suasion and advocating legislation. In May 1882, three months after giving his evidence Curtis wrote to the Commission stating that a member ballot revealed an overwhelming majority of members favoured legislation (279 for and 48 against).⁶² In short, MECA had shifted its position.⁶³ In its Report, the Commission noted the failure of moral suasion under MECA (which it labeled as moribund) and even the far more vigorous efforts of Salesmens and Assistants Union, due to local jealousies amongst retailers (including suburban/city rivalries), competitive pressures and the late shutting of hundreds of small shops.⁶⁴

A strong majority of retailers, managers and employers also favoured legislation. Of those expressing a clear view 33 endorsed mandatory shop-closing laws, 14 were opposed while another four identified practical difficulties enforcing the law.⁶⁵ The Royal Commission identified four classes of employers, namely the proprietors of large establishments who accepted early closing;⁶⁶ those who, like draper Mark Foy, reluctantly observed longer hours due to competitive pressures; those (comparatively few in its view) who preferred long hours by choice/necessity; and small family-only businesses. The Commission found the arguments that attempts to introduce a more humane system was an infringement on liberty of the subject as 'wholly untenable, and ... based on self-interest and indifference to the health and comfort of their employés'.⁶⁷

Like British inquiries, the Royal Commission took considerable evidence from medical practitioners (12 were interviewed) on the deleterious effects of long hours on the health of shop assistants, reinforcing the attention devoted to it by other parties. Indeed, the injurious effects of long hours were addressed 76 times in the Minutes of Evidence, the fourth most discussed issue (after hours of labour, compulsory closing and effects on trade). In its Report the Commission noted the overwhelming view of medical practitioners it interviewed on the serious consequences of long hours (in terms of exhaustion/fatigue, digestive disorders, neuralgia, minor glandular enlargements and the use of stimulants) for workers in shops, factories and workrooms. Particular concern was expressed regarding the health effects on women (including saleswomen) and young workers.⁶⁸ Concern was also expressive at the excessive use of gas lighting in shops.⁶⁹ The Commission concluded that the 'medical evidence alone ... should be accepted as irresistibly conclusive of the imperative necessity of further and more restrictive legislation ... for the better regulation of shops, workrooms and factories'.⁷⁰

Drawing this evidence together, the Commission found only legislation could achieve a universal and enduring reduction in working hours for shop assistants and recommended an Act establishing early closing be introduced (and specifying that employés should work no more than 48 hours per week).⁷¹ Delayed by its now extensive brief, by the time this report was tabled the government had changed and the recommendations went before a new Ministry. Late in the 1884 parliamentary session Alfred Deakin presented a Bill to the Legislative Assembly (with a clause similar to Gardiner's Bill) but time ran out before it could be considered.

In the meantime other groups of retail and associated workers had mobilised in pursuit of early closing. The Grocers Assistants Union of Victoria and the Melbourne Chemists Assistants Association both initially pursued the path of moral suasion before rapidly turning their attention to the regulatory option. In October 1883 the Chemists Assistants wrote to the Royal Commission stating they were working between 70 and 90 hours per week (and arguing for a 60 hour maximum) and in February 1884 a number of officeholders and proprietors were interviewed by the Commission.⁷² The Grocers Assistants Union also took up the cudgels calling on the premier and parliament to introduce a law and stating it had the supporting signatures of 1,300 shopkeepers (including 700 small retailers who employed no labour).⁷³

Growing frustration at ongoing delays led to the establishment of the Victorian Political Short Hours League in 1885 with the single-minded goal of pressuring the government into introducing early-closing legislation (and probably modeled on a similar body established some years earlier in the UK). At its first public meeting at the Temperance Hall on 14 July the 300 shop assistants attending carried a resolution to petition parliament for a law requiring shops to close by 7.00pm weekdays and 10.00pm on Saturday (the petition was ultimately signed by around 4000 shop assistants).⁷⁴ The League organised suburban and regional branches and held further public meetings to promote the cause as well as trying to bring direct pressure to bear on parliamentarians. When Deakin introduced a new Bill the League organised deputations to attend proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and to meet with every parliamentary member (as individuals or in groups) to ascertain their views and enlist their support. This concerted pressure paid off and the Bill was carried by in the Legislative Assembly a large majority (39 votes to 21). Recognising that progressive measures often foundered in the conservative Legislative Council the League redoubled its efforts. It again organised a string of deputations to Council members, overwhelming the lobbying efforts of its poorly organised opposition, and securing passage of the Bill without a division (though several members expressed their ongoing opposition).⁷⁵

In putting the measure to the Victorian Legislative Council F.T. Sargood, a merchant with clothing and boot factories observed:

the second part of the Bill — that dealing with the closing of shops at certain hours ... involves the interests of a large number of persons, directly and indirectly. The total number of employ's in shops in this country cannot be far short of 45,000. The interest of such a large number of persons, who are helpless, is deserving of the fullest and most careful consideration of this House ... I am perfectly aware that the cry is raised by some employers that, if the hours be shortened, trade will be ruined. When I hear that statement my memory is carried back to the time, in 1853 I think, when the wholesale trade had long hours on Saturday and other days, and the movement was started by my late father to shorten the hours and close at two o'clock on Saturdays. It was said that the thing could not be done without injury to business, yet since the hours were then shortened to two o'clock Saturday, and after a number of years to noon, business has not suffered and employers have not suffered ... The question next arises — Can this closing, which so many are anxious for, be obtained by more suasion? I admit that if it could be there would not be the slightest necessity for the proposal in this Bill, but I say unhesitatingly that moral suasion has failed utterly, both in the old country and here.⁷⁶

The new Factories and Shops Act⁷⁷ received Royal Assent on 23 December and the clauses fixing closing times at 7.00pm weekdays and 10.00pm Saturday went into operation on 1 March 1886. Notwithstanding the call for universality the legislation suffered from what were to prove to be crucial flaws. A number of classes of shops were excluded⁷⁸ and under s45 local/municipal councils were given powers to pass byelaws enabling other classes of shops to close later or requiring them to close earlier upon receipt of a petition from a majority of the retailers referred to. Although it gave the possibility of more encompassing rules s45 provided a significant escape clause for those opposed to the controls on trading hours. Local government was also empowered to fix penalties for closing time breaches not exceeding £10.

Flushed with success and cognisant of the international significance of its victory, in January 1886 the president of the Victorian Political Short Hours League, Jonathon Gordon, sent a detailed account of the struggle to Thomas Sutherst, president of the Shop Hours Labour League, London.⁷⁹ Gordon noted Melbourne and its immediate environs represented a major urban center with around 300,000 inhabitants. He then referred to the repeated unsuccessful efforts at voluntary agreements using 'moral suasion' before giving an account of efforts to convince the Royal Commission and then place pressure on the government to introduce an early-closing law. He acknowledged the supporting role played by bodies like the Grocers Assistants Union and enclosed a copy of the Bill with the hope that this would aid the London society in its struggle. Its task completed, the Political Short Hours League was rapidly succeeded by the Victorian Shop Employés Union, which sought to ensure the new law was actually implemented.

Conclusion

While never a movement confined to workers, early closing provided a critical impetus for organisation by retail workers in the nineteenth century. The mobilisation of workers it achieved was by no means insignificant when compared to worker organisation as a whole and it represented a major pillar of the campaign for shorter working hours in the nineteenth century. Yet it has received little attention from labour and social historians. There are two apparent reasons for this neglect. First, since the movement always involved employers, leading citizens and activists as well as workers, it does not fit a conventional model of worker organisation and capital/labour struggle. Second, as argued elsewhere,⁸⁰ despite the rejection of the Webb's formal and narrow concept of unionate organization, there has been a failure to fully re-evaluate the scope and diversity of worker organisation in the light of this. For shop workers, early closing was a struggle for shorter working hours because in a real sense trading hours dictated their hours of work and this was also the basis for community support. They lacked the bargaining power to secure and maintain shorter working hours directly through collective action whereas calls to restrict trading hours could draw on broad community support. It should not be overlooked that after repeated failed attempts to restrict working hours by combination, several groups of craft workers (notably bakers and butchers) became actively involved in the push to restrict trading hours.

The notion that a social good can be achieved by voluntary agreement of the parties rather than combination or prescriptive regulation was attractive to those embracing laissez faire attitudes in the nineteenth century. Since the mid-1970s it has enjoyed renewed popularity amongst business, think tanks and government policy circles throughout much of the developed world. The eight-hours movement briefly experimented with moral suasion while the early-closing movement represents perhaps the most sustained efforts to realize this voluntarist ideal. Ultimately early closing highlighted the impracticability of such an approach. As in Britain, divisions between small and large shopkeepers, regional variations, customer preferences, limited organisation and solidarity amongst shop employees (and the cheapness of shop labour) and the capacity of a few financially marginal or greedy shop owners to fracture any agreement fatally weakened the movement.⁸¹ Early closing provides a good illustration of the complex nature of struggles between capital and labour, especially the fragmentation of interests on both 'sides'. As elsewhere, a not inconsiderable number of retailers supported early closing while others were vigorously opposed or feared for their livelihoods. Idealism (including religious views) and community pressures played some part⁸² in retailer support though pragmatic self-interest was probably more important. Such fractured interests are not uncommon and can be found in contemporary struggles, such as those relating to the regulation of home-based clothing workers.

Ultimately, the failure of 'moral suasion' encouraged shop worker organisations more closely aligned to the mainstream union movement and a political campaign for parliament to prescribe closing times. The success of the latter made Victoria a pioneer of early-closing legislation.

Endnotes

^* We would like to acknowledge Rae Frances, Melanie Nolan, Beverly Kingston, Kate Evans, Julie Kimber, Brian Dickey and Brian Samuels for alerting us to published and unpublished material on the early closing movement. Kate Murphy provided invaluable research assistance. We are also grateful to the helpful comments of the journal's anonymous referees. For an examination of the enforcement of the legislation referred to in this article up to 1900 see M. Quinlan and M. Goodwin, 'Combating the tyranny of flexibility: Shop assistants and the struggle to regulate trading hours in the Australian colony of Victoria 1880–1900, Social History (forthcoming).

^1. J. Wesley Bready, Lord Shaftesbury and Social Industrial Progress, Allen and Unwin, London, 1927, p. 266. While Wesley paints Shaftesbury as a supporter of early closing, Whitaker argues he opposed the legislative protection of shop workers. W. Whitaker, Victorian and Edwardian Shopworkers: the Struggle to Obtain Better Conditions and a Half-Holiday, David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1973, p. 54.

^2. However, the movement had deeper roots. The Webbs cite a petition for early closing by Sheffield shop assistants in 1827 and Whitaker refers to campaigns by drapers' assistants in the 1820s and 1830s. S. and B. Webb, History of Trade Unionism, Longmans, Green & Co, London, 1907, p. 98 and Whitaker, Victorian and Edwardian Shopworkers, pp. 36–42.

^3. Whitaker, Victorian and Edwardian Shopworkers, pp. 7–35.

^4.Ibid., pp. 19–20.

^5. In the UK there are a number of contemporary references to high mortality and morbidity rates amongst shop assistants, including Edward Flower (1843) who noted this was not apparent to customers because assistants were dismissed and sent home when they grew pale and sickly. In 1884 another activist, Thomas Sutherst (a barrister), published a 280-page book entitled Death and Disease Behind the Counter. In 1893 Dr Bowrie told a House of Lords committee that 38% of shop assistants suffered from consumption. For this and other evidence see Whitaker, Victorian and Edwardian Shopworkers, pp. 9, 30, 55 and 99.

^6. Exceptions include L. Fitzhardinge, That Fiery Particle: a Political Biography of William Morris Hughes, Vol. 1 1862–1914, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1978, pp. 63, 73–77, 99, 104 and 115; and J. Moss, Sound of Trumpets: History of the Labour Movement in South Australia, Wakefield Press, Adelaide, 1985, pp. 108–9.

^7. In Britain, Flower (1843) and John Lilwall (1856) published accounts of early closing while Webb and Cox wrote an account of the eight-hour day struggle. S. Webb and H. Cox, The Eight Hours Day, Walter Scott Ltd, London, 1894. For Australia, see W. Pember Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 2, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1969 (original edition 1902) and W.E. Murphy, History of the Eight Hours Movement, Pioneers of the Eight Hours System, Melbourne, no date.

^8. See F.H. Cutler, A History of the Anti-Sweating Movement in Victoria, 1873–93, unpublished MA Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1956; E. Ryan, Two-thirds of a Man: Women and Arbitration in New South Wales 1902–08, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1984, pp. 145–55, 160, 170 and 174; G. Reekie, 'Humanising Industry: Paternalism, Welfarism and Labour Control in Sydney's Big Stores, 1890–1930', Labour History, no. 53, November 1987, pp. 1–19; E. Ryan and A. Conlon, Gentle Invaders, Penguin, Ringwood, 2^nd edition, 1989, pp. 44–6; M. Nolan, Uniformity and Diversity: a Case Study of Female Shop and Office Workers in Victoria, 1880–1939, unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University, 1990, pp. 91–105; P. Young, Proud to be a Rebel: the Life and Times of Emma Miller, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1991; and J. Allen, Rose Scott: Vision and Revision in Feminism, Oxford University Press, Sydney, 1994.

^9. For an exception see N. Nicholson, Wednesday Early Closing, Faber, London, 1975.

^10. In Melbourne prominent sponsors of the movement included a succession of mayors and religious leaders. For example in May 1871 a meeting held at the Melbourne Town Hall to support a Saturday half holiday was chaired by Sir James McCulloch, with the mayor and other notable citizens on the platform including W.M.K. Vale, Rev. J. Bickford, Rev. H.H.P. Handfield, and City Councilors, Amess and McIllwraith. Age, 13 May 1871. Regarding prominent members of the NSW Early Closing League at the end of the 19th century, see Fitzhardinge, That Fiery Particle, pp. 63, 73–77, 99, 104 and 115.

^11. From the 1880s early closing received active support from union peak councils in the Australian colonies. This translated into support for early-closing legislation from these bodies, Intercolonial Trade Union Congresses, Labour Electoral Leagues and the Labor Party, notwithstanding critical elements who labeled shop assistants as anti-Labor. For example, in New South Wales, ex-shopkeeper, union secretary and future Labor Prime Minister, William Morris Hughes acted as the ECA's parliamentary spokesman prior to his switch to federal parliament. B. Nairn, Civilizing Capitalism: the Labour Movement in New South Wales, ANU Press, Canberra, 1973, pp. 27, 174, 214, and 223; L. Fitzhardinge, That Fiery Particle, pp. 63, 73–77; R. Markey, The Making of the Labor Party in New South Wales 1880–1900, New South Wales University Press, Sydney, 1988, pp. 222–24; and F. Crowley (ed.), Colonial Australia: a Documentary History of Australia, Vol. 3, 1875–1900, Thomas Nelson, Melbourne, 1980, p. 211.

^12.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report, 1883, Government Printer, Melbourne, Minutes of Evidence, p. 74. Another factor in the preference for regulating trading hours rather than working hours appears was the perceived difficulty of enforcing limits on the working hours of shop assistants in the absence of such restrictions. See R. Markey, The Making of the Labor Party, pp. 222–23.

^13. A Bill to legalize the Eight Hours in Victoria, Legislative Assembly of Victoria, Votes and Proceedings, 18 April 1883, p. 121.

^14. For example, an Eight Hours Bill was introduced into Queensland parliament as early as 1874 (repeated in 1876) and in 1890 an Eight Hours Bill passed the Legislative Assembly only to be blocked by the Legislative Council. In New South Wales, a Labor MLA, Schey, introduced seven Eight Hours Bills between 1890 and 1897 (all failed due to weak liberal support in the lower house and upper-house opposition, notably, in 1888, Schey ranked early closing as equally important to eight hours and factory legislation. M. Quinlan, 'Pre-arbitral labour legislation in Australia', in S. Macintyre and R. Mitchell (eds), Foundations of Arbitration: Origins and Effects of State Compulsory Arbitration 1890–1914, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1989, p. 43 and R. Markey, The Making of the Labor Party, pp. 222–23. 'Employés' is an early spelling of employees used in titles of organisations and in legislation.

^15. For a description of the database, see M. Quinlan and M. Gardner, 'Strikes, Worker Protest, and Union Growth in Canada and Australia, 1815–1900: a Comparative Analysis', LabourlLe Travail, no. 36, Fall 1995, pp. 175–208.

^16. Eight-hour leagues also pursued a single issue but they were peak bodies rather direct-member unions.

^17.Argus, 30 June 1876.

^18. An exception is the Hobart Town Mercantile Assistants Association (1846–55) whose annual reports, rules and other records are held by the Tasmanian Public Library and Archives Office of Tasmania, Hobart.

^19. M. Quinlan, M. Gardner and P. Akers, 'Reconsidering the Collective Impulse: Formal Organisation and Informal Associations Amongst Workers in the Australian Colonies, 1795–1850', Labour/Le Travail, no. 52, 2003, pp. 137–80.

^20. Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 1.

^21. Quinlan, Gardner and Akers, 'Reconsidering the Collective Impulse'.

^22. See Argus, 10, 20 and 28–31 May 1850 and 1, 3 June 1850.

^23.Argus, 19 September 1851.

^24.Argus, 2, 7 October 1851.

^25.Argus, 22 October 1851 and 1, 10 November 1851.

^26.Argus, 13, 14 May 1853 and 18 June 1853.

^27.Argus, 17, 27 December 1853; 20, 22 December 1854 and 6, 12, 16, 17 January 1855.

^28. Searle notes the body formed in late 1855 had 'Judge Pohlman as president and Bishop Perry, four judges and most of the colony's political leaders as patrons and vice presidents.' G. Searle, The Golden Age: a History of the Colony of Victoria, Melbourne University Press, 1963, p. 214.

^29.Argus, 7 October 1866; 2 November 1866; 14 December 1866 and 20, 29 June 1882.

^30.Age, 18 November 1872 and 22 June 1877.

^31.Age, 10, 12 September 1896 and 2 December 1896.

^32.Argus, 26 December 1866 and 23 September 1867.

^33.Argus, 6 May 1867.

^34. Only two firms were reported as agreeing to pay early. Age, 29 May 1869, Argus, 28 and 29 May 1869; 11, 13, 14 and 15 October 1869.

^35.Argus, 20, 22 November 1869.

^36.Age, 9 April 1873.

^37.Age, 30 June 1873.

^38.Age, 23 December 1873.

^39.Age, 27 June 1874.

^40.Age, 14 and 23 December 1874.

^41.Age, 23, 29 January, 1 March and 15 June 1875.

^42.Age, 25 March and 1 April 1876.

^43.Age, 13, 16 January 1877.

^44.Age, 20 August and 25 September 1877.

^45. Saturday was also unpopular with country residents in New Zealand, as it was market day. When legislation was enacted there localities were able to select the day and the overwhelming majority opted for mid-week half holidays. W. Pember Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, p. 189.

^46.Age, 2 March, 22 May, 18 June and 14 December 1878.

^47.Age, 2 June 1879.

^48.Age, 5 July and 13 December 1879.

^49.Age, 13 December 1879.

^50.Age, 12 June 1880.

^51.Age, 21 January and 9 July 1881.

^52.Age, 22, 29 March 1881.

^53.Age, 21 April; 4 May; 18 June, 5 July; 9, 12, 19 and 20 August; and 15, 28 September 1881.

^54. S and B. Webb, Industrial Democracy, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1914, p. 804.

^55. In Britain a law securing workers their four Bank Holidays was enacted in 1871 but it was not until 1912 that Winston Churchill's Shop Act provided for a universal half-holiday. J. Wesley Bready, Lord Shaftesbury and Social Industrial Progress, p. 266.

^56. Following the tailoresses strike of 1882, the Commission called for (in its first progress report) and was given wider terms of reference making it virtually an inquiry into industrial relations in Victorian industry. G. Parsons, Some Aspects of the Development of Manufacturing in Melbourne 1870 to 1890, Unpublished PhD thesis, Monash University, 1970, p. 573.

^57.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report.

^58.Ibid., pp. 1, 18 and 21. See also J. Hagan, 'Employers, Trade Unions and the First Victorian Factory Acts', Labour History, no. 7, November 1964, pp. 7–8.

^59.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report, p. 83.

^60.Ibid., p. 85.

^61.Ibid., p. 7. Curtis disavowed any hostility with the Salesmens and Assistants Union although the Age reported MECA had labeled its newer rival a 'boys union'. Age, 23 February 1882.

^62.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report, Appendix C. p. 120.

^63. Although some years later the president of the Political Short Hours League alleged MECA refused to sponsor legislation. Age, 16 January 1886. A similar shift occurred in the UK with the ECA moving from ambivalence in 1886 to advocating legislation by 1889. Whitaker, Victorian and Edwardian Shopworkers, pp. 75–6.

^64.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report, pp. iv–vi.

^65. Compiled from transcripts of evidence. Ibid.

^66. There is other evidence of large retailer support for legislation, such as the private letters of Fred Cato of Moran and Cato. U. Porter, Growing Together: Letters between Frederick John Cato and Frances Bethune 1881 to 1884, Privately Published, Melbourne, 1981, pp. 180–81.

^67.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report, p. xi.

^68. Given its focus on trading hours the question of limiting working hours for women as a particular category were not considered and nor was there any detailed consideration of the provision of seating. For analysis of gender aspects of reforming shops and factory legislation in Queensland see H. Hamley, 'The law against women: Queensland industrial legislation from the Factories and Shops Act 1896 to the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916', Australian Journal of Legal History, 1996, no. 2, pp. 198–203.

^69.Ibid. pp viii–x. Some large retailers also saw this as a problem. See Porter, Growing Together.

^70.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops, Second Progress Report, 1883, p. ix.

^71. A majority of Commissioners favoured fixing closing times at 7pm weekdays and 10pm Saturday. The Commission also expressed concern for the hours worked by barmaids, later producing a separate Report recommending that women be prohibited from employment in hotels due to the risk of social degradation (ie prostitution). This recommendation was never adopted but bar and restaurant workers were included in a subsequent expansion of early closing legislation in the 1890s. Ibid., p. xii–xiii and Royal Commission on Employés in Shops: Report on the Employment of Barmaids, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1884.

^72.Royal Commission on Employés in Shops: Final Report, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1884, pp. 147–58 and Age, 26 October 1883.

^73. Referred to in a letter published in the Age, 18 January 1886.

^74.Age, 16 January 1886.

^75.Ibid.

^76.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, vol. L, 1885, pp. 2197–2201 cited in Crowley, Colonial Australia, pp. 199–200.

^77. The full title of the legislation was 49 Victoria no. 862 An Act for the supervision and regulation of Factories and Workrooms and for the limitation of the Hours of Trading in Shops and for other purposes, 18 December 1885.

^78. They included chemists, coffee shops, eating houses, fish and oyster shops, fruit and vegetable shops, restaurants, tobacconists, booksellers and newsagents. Ibid., Third Schedule.

^79. The letter was also reproduced in the Age, 16 January 1886.

^80. Quinlan, Gardner and Akers 'Reconsidering the Collective Impulse'.

^81. Whitaker, Victorian and Edwardian Shopworkers, pp. 59, 77, 94 and 100.

^82. In Victoria, Fred Cato's Wesleyan faith probably played a part in his endorsement of early closing and apparent sympathy for the eight hours movement, although there was pragmatic element in his own dislike of excessive hours. In Queensland Thomas Finney who owned a large store in Brisbane had been a member of Dublin's Early Closing Association, supported a number of progressive movements, introduced 6pm weekday closing from 1879 and urged his employees to agitate for the cause. In NSW the large Sydney department store Anthony Hordens closed on Saturday afternoon long before the passage of the Early Closing Act in 1899. Size gave these owners an advantage not available to their small competitors. Porter, Growing Together; Young, Proud to be a Rebel, pp. 57–58; and Ryan, Two-thirds of a Man, p. 160.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.

A Failure of Voluntarism: Shop Assistants and the Struggle to Restrict Trading Hours in the Colony of Victoria, 1850–85