The Royal Commission into shops, factories and workshops 1891 - with a focus on the evidence surrounding the boot trade.

Dr Robin Trotter, 2021 and 2024 Queensland Business Leaders Hall of Fame Fellow

My research into the history of the boot making firm of T C Dixon & Sons led me to explore the context of Brisbane’s early industrial history and that of the Brisbane boot trade (see my blog: The Bootmakers of Brisbane Part 1 and Part 2).  That exploration led me, in turn, to look at the Royal Commission of 1891 to inquire into the Shops, Factories and Workplaces; an inquiry that was set up at a time when there was growing agitation from reformists and unions in respect to working conditions and wages, and when the boot trade was to the fore as one of the largest and most militant unions of the period. (1)  Whilst this blog is a side issue to the Dixon story, it does set up the context for that story and for the history of the boot trade in colonial Queensland and into the twentieth century.  And, although the recommendations of the Royal Commission were glossed over, the evidence collected over the period of the Inquiry provides detailed evidence for the historical record.

In his thesis on aspects of Brisbane in the 1880s, D. P. Crook wrote that Brisbane, by the end of the 1880s ‘had evolved forms of municipal organisation, and all the patent institutions of city life as they had emerged in the colonies - town halls and tramways, gas and Mechanics' Institutes, bridges and Exhibitions, theatres and cathedrals, libraries, tabernacles, Fire Brigades, electric light and water supply, hotels, classic city architecture and unclassical domestic architecture’.  In effect, over that decade Brisbane had evolved from a frontier town to a metropolis [in the colonial sense].(2)

But this ‘Booming Brisbane’ had a dark side.  As Lawson points out, the city’s development was ‘uneven’ and by the 1890s with the rapid growth of industrial development, there was evidence of ‘exploitation of workers in wages, hours and conditions’.(3)  Exacerbating the exploitative and unsatisfactory conditions, the previous decade’s growth was slowing with the onset of depression and so pressure was evident on the shop and factory floors as businesses were facing tighter economic conditions.  Increasing worker activism - demands for higher wages and better conditions were on the rise:  It was, as some historians have noted, the rise of ‘new unionism’: a period when solidarity which had in an earlier period been the preserve of guilds and skilled workers had ‘spread in the 1880s amongst previously unorganised semi and unskilled workers’ – and not only in urban areas but in rural areas as well.(4)

 

Whilst these conditions applied to men, women AND children in general, the women’s movements apart from the battle for the vote, was also championing the cause of women in the work force, so selection of women to sit on the Royal Commission was not only a win for all women, it was also a win for working women.  This was also a significant historical event as it was the first time women had been allowed to sit on a Royal Commission.(8)  Moreover, the women were all committed to women’s welfare: health, working conditions, suffrage.  Three of the six female Commissioners were involved with the unions as well as with the suffragette movement. So, despite the Worker’s bitter attack on the selection of men of ‘the Capitalist class’, there were other voices on the Commission.

Let’s take a look at these men and women who were finally appointed to sit on the Royal Commission.  The appointees were selected by Government appointment, and selected from nominations from outside government.  The Government appointees were:  Hon. B B Moreton (Chairman), Messrs D H Dalrymple, T Glassey, J Chapmen, J. Ferguson, J J Kingsbury, W K Salton, T E White, and Dr Booth as well as Mrs Leontine Cooper and Mrs Grace Neill. The Federated Employers Union appointees were Messrs A Hunter, T Morrow, T W Thurlow, and Mrs Isles and Mrs E Edwards.  The Australian Labour Federation appointees were: Messrs T W Crawford, F McDonald, J C Steward, and Mrs M O’Connel and Miss S A Bailey.(9)

The Commissioners were tasked with inquiring into:

• The hours during which persons are employed;
• The conditions under which children are employed;
• The sanitary conditions; ,
• The manner in which protection is afforded against the dangers of machinery; and
• Other matters concerning the welfare of the persons employed in shops, factories, and workshops.

Over the course of the Inquiry, over 400 individuals gave evidence to the Commission, including a number of workers employed in the boot trade as well as the secretary of the Operative Boot Trade Union, William Strickland.  One witness giving evidence to the Commissioner was Emma Miller.  Miller identified herself as a ‘Gentleman’s white shirt maker’.  Although Miller was not involved in the boot trade, she was a respondent of interest.  She testified against sweating in the textile industries, and throughout her life was an advocate for women’s rights, a unionist (when women were not prevalent in unions), and a suffragette. (32)  Today she is recognised as a pioneer advocate for women’s rights and is honoured with a statue in the Brisbane CBD.

The Commissioners visited 49 work places in Brisbane and an additional 10 in Ipswich. Three boot factories were included in the visits to Brisbane establishments:  John Hunter’s (Queen Street, Brisbane), Mr Neighbour’s Boot Factory (Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley), and Goldsworthy and Perkins Boot Factory (Breakfast Creek).  On instruction from the Commission, Robert Lee-Bryce, the City Inspector for the Municipality of Brisbane, visited a fourth boot factory, Rose’s Boot Factory (Russell Street, South Brisbane).  Dixons Boot Factory (Montague Road, West End) was not visited but one of Dixon’s employees, Mr Walter Hubbard, gave evidence to the Inquiry at a night sitting of the Commission.

This was the report of Robert Lee-Bryce, the City Inspector for the Municipality of Brisbane, when he accompanied the Commissioners on their visit to Mr Hunter’s boot factory on 7th April, 1891: 

Premises: Four flats; dimensions of each, 70 feet x 68 feet x 10. 12 closets. 205 persons on premises. 4 closets for girls, 8 closets for males.

In company with your Commission I to-day inspected the workshop in Ann street occupied by Mr. Hunter as a boot factory, and have the honour to report as follows:—There is absolutely no ventilation of any character to be of use to the workers, while the effluvia from the gas and the exhalations from the crowd of employees must, I think, have an injurious effect on their health. The workrooms are too low in the ceiling, and, in at least two of them, too many people are employed, while the division of the sexes does not appear to me to be judicious. The sanitary arrangements are capable of very considerable improvement, and with the exception of a very small space (which is really of no use) in one of the workrooms screened off for the girls, there is no place set apart for meals, &e. I did not see any apparatus for extinguishing fire, while the wooden steps outside for a fire escape would be of no use whatever, as only one person at a time can have egress on them. The inside stairs are also of wood, and in the event of a fire taking place, it would certainly result disastrously. The premises inside require to be immediately cleansed, and arrangements made for this to be constantly attended to.  The cubical space allotted to the hands is of a minimum character.  The urinals were smelling offensively.

Robert Lee-Bryce’s report on Rose’s Boot Factory, which he visited on 8th April, was much more concise, but equally critical of the working conditions: 

In accordance with your arrangement I did not inspect the cellar floor of the boot factory in Russell street, South Brisbane, occupied by Mr. Rose; but at the request of several members of your Commission I visited the remaining parts of the premises, and have the honour to report as follows:— There is no ventilation whatever; the premises as visited in my presence are very much overcrowded, and the place is not structurally adapted for occupation as a factory. The sanitary arrangements are defective.

The following day, the Commissioners, with Mr Robert Lee-Bryce, visited Mr Neighbour’s Boot Factory in Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley, and the Inspector undertook close scrutiny of the premises and again reported that this factory’s conditions for its workers were unsatisfactory in a number of areas:

On the street floor there is a workroom 93 feet x 31feet 5 inches x 24 feet for the accommodation of fifty male and thirty-two female workers, and having sixteen windows on the sides of the building, along with one on the roof. There are twenty-four gas jets and twenty-five machines in the room.  The ventilation is fairly good.

Below the level of Brunswick Street there are two workrooms.

One of these measures 41 feet 6 inches x 32 feet x 11 feet 8 inches, and is for seventy-five male workers, which allows a very minimum cubical space for each.  Fourteen windows light the room.   Ventilation is very imperfect.

The other workroom measures 54 feet 8 inches x 32 feet x 11 feet 8 inches, and is tor twenty five male workers.  Eleven windows give light.  There are six gas jets and two large burners for heating irons.   The ventilation is imperfect.   The sanitary arrangements are very defective, and the closets are not constructed with any regard to privacy.  There is one closet with two seats for the females; and two closets, each with two seats, for the males.  Persons using the closets must therefore dress and undress in the presence of each other.  The drainage is fairly good.

The several floors are only swept twice a week, and only washed with a hose about once a month.

There is no apparatus to extinguish fire.  There is one cloak-room for the girls.

The Commission moved on to Goldsworthy and Perkins Boot Factory on 10th April, and the Inspector’s report read ss follows:

The building contains two workrooms, each of which measures 70 feet x 35 feet x 11 feet.

The workroom on the ground floor is to accommodate twenty males and twenty females, white that on the upper floor is to accommodate thirty-five male operatives. . Both of the workrooms are well lighted by means of glass windows.

A very small shed, which is not water-proof, is set apart as a cloak-room for the girls.

The sanitary arrangements are grossly insufficient, there being only one closet for males and one for females.  The surroundings of the closets are disgustingly filthy, the ground being covered with urinations and evacuations.  No earth or deodorant is supplied for closet use, and the stench is very offensive. Trade and other refuse is scattered in heaps over the yard and ground.

The premises are hot drained, and pools of water stagnate in front of the factory facing towards the street. The end of the down pipe to carry off storm water from the roof guttering is about 2 feet above the surface of the ground and only 2 or 3 yards from the girls’ closet, while no provision whatever is made to carry off the storm water as it will pour down.

The premises are very dirty. There are no appliances to extinguish fire.

Although the Commissioners did not visit Dixon’s Boot Factory in West End, one of the company’s employees, Mr Walter Hubbard, gave evidence in a sitting of the Commission. 

Mr Hubbard identified himself as a bootmaker.  Although he was employed at Dixons at that time, he had also worked in other boot factories in Brisbane: Hunter’s Boot Factory, Goldsworthy and Perkins, Palmer’s and Harris, as well as Neighbours.  In respect to Dixons, Mr Hubbard’s comments were generally positive or non-committal.  However, the Commissioners appeared more interested in Mr Hubbard’s experiences at the other boot factories rather than his comments on working conditions at Dixons:

 

The Chairman: Is the ventilation of the factory [Dixons] good? I cannot complain of the ventilation.

Are the rooms not hot? They are very hot in the summer time.

But you have fair ventilation ? Yes ; fair. …

What do you complain of? I have not very much to complain of at Dixon’s, but I 'have had experience of other places. …

What are the sanitary arrangements at Dixon’s? They are good. …

Have you got anything to complain of at Dixon’s ? Nothing, with the exception of the system of paying. We are paid fortnightly.

Are the men favourable to that ? No, they are all in favour of weekly payments.

 

In the main, Mr Hubbard’s comments on the other factories where he had worked tended to be less complementary:

Mr. McDonnell:  What is the ventilation like in Palmer and Harris’s? Very good; it is the best shop I have worked in. …

How many men were engaged at Goldsworthy and Perkins’s?  About fifty men, and from fifteen to twenty women and girls.

What was the ventilation like? The ventilation I consider was very bad there.

Was the workroom on the ground floor? One on the ground floor and one upstairs. The upstairs room was better ventilated than the downstairs room.

Was it oppressive to work downstairs ? Very oppressive. …

How long were you working at Hunter’s ? About four months. ….

Were the sanitary arrangements good there? No; very bad.

The ventilation? It was badly ventilated—bad windows for ventilation.

What difficulty did you experience with the windows? We had to have them wide open to get any fresh air, and then there was too much. If they were partly opened they interfered with the work, …

How many closets are there?  One for the men.

Were they regularly looked after?  No; it was the exception to see them looked after.

Was earth supplied?  They never had any earth there at all.

Were there any urinals?  No, none.

 

Dr. Booth : Do Goldsworthy and Perkins employ girls ? Yes.

Are the sexes separated? They are in one room.

Do you know anything about the sanitary accommodation for the females ? No, I do not; but they have no dressing accommodation; they dress and undress behind the door.

The Commission presented two Reports the first dated 11 June and the second report dated 13 June, 1891.  James Booth added a ‘Rider’ to the two Reports. 

The First report of 1 June was signed by:

• B. B. MORTON, Chairman
• THOMAS GLASSEY
• JAMES BOOTH
• THOS. W. CRAWFORD
• FRANK McDONNELL
• .J. C. STEWART
• LEONTINE COOPEB
• ELIZABETH EDWARDS
• MAY McCONNEL
• ISABELLA J. ISLES
• GRACE NEILL
• S. A. BAILEY

and made the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATIONS That the compulsory clauses of “The State Education Act of 1875” be put in force. ’ That no child be employed under twelve years of age in any shop, factory, or workshop. That no child be employed therein between the ages of twelve and fourteen unless he or she can produce a certificate setting forth that the standard of education provided for in clause 26 of The State Education Act of 1875 has been attained. That no child under sixteen be employed for a longer period than forty-eight hours per week.  That greater and more clearly-defined powers be given to inspectors under the local authorities to insist that in all shops, factories, and workshops there shall be provided such ventilation, general sanitation, protection against dangers of machinery and fire, together with such other conveniences as shall ensure, as far as practicable, healthful and safe surroundings for those employed therein. That periodical inspection be made of land boilers-by a competent official. That recent factory and workshop legislation in England should be adopted here as far as suitable to the local conditions of work, and be stringently enforced. That technical education should be undertaken, by the State. That all light labour capable of being performed by females, such as telegraphy, typesetting, sale of stamps and other postal matters, and routine clerical work in Government departments, be thrown open to women, and that they be given a preference when practicable

Whilst not listed in the above, the First report did make a recommendation in respect to the controversial issue of early closing, stating: ‘Your Commissioners therefore recommend that 6 p.m. to made by legal enactment, the hour at which shops should close’  That the question of early closing was divisive is evident in that some of the Commissioners did not support this recommendation, hence the second, and minority, report which stated in relation to early closing:  ‘We cannot recommend that this legislation be granted'.  Signatories to the Second Report were:

• JAS. CHAPMAN
• ALEX. J. HUNTER
• J. J. KINGSBURY
• THOS. MORROW
• WM. K. SALTON
• D. H. DALRYMPLE
• THOS. E. WHITE
• R. W. THURLOW

James Booth added a Rider to the Report in which he stressed medical and wellbeing concerns and also gave his support to early closing on those grounds.

There was no immediate implementation of the recommendations and within two years the political situation had changed.  Sir Samuel Griffith – of liberal and federalist views - resigned as Premier to take up the position of Chief Justice of Queensland and Sir Thomas McIlwraith returned to head up a Conservative government.  A Shops and Factories Act was not achieved until 1900 and with that came regulation of trading hours for shops and the Act also made some moves toward reforming workers conditions.

In relation to the Royal Commission’s brief to examine the extend of child labour, the Queensland’s State Education Act 1875 had made education compulsory for children 6 to 12 but the compulsory clauses of that  Act were not gazetted until 1900 at which time the school leaving age was also raised to 14. 

Despite the tardiness of the Griffith and subsequent governments to follow up on the Royal Commission, the work of the Commissioners should be both recognised and recommended.  And despite political and social differences of the Commissioners, their integrity and commitment to the task is clear in the record of evidence.  That evidence provided by witnesses, even given that there may have been reluctance on the part of witnesses to either appear before the Commission, or to provide certain information, does give insight into working conditions in shops, factories and workshops in Brisbane/Ipswich in the late 1800s.

And, in conclusion, we may ask what impact the Royal Commission had on the boot trade.  No immediate impact given the inaction of the Government to follow up on the Report. And the bootmakers were increasingly flexing their combined muscles to confront their employers until they called a strike in 1905; the first bootmakers’ strike had occurred in 1885 with some wins for the workers.  Unfortunately, for the workers, the 1905 strike ended badly for the striking bootmakers and many lost their jobs as a result.  However, the information garnered during the course of the hearings and the visits to the boot making factories has provided insight into an industry that was important to the colony/state in terms of products, gainful employment, and trade upskilling.  And the social and economic value of the boot making trade is clearly evidenced throughout the probing questions and the witnesses’ responses.

Other blogs by Dr Robin Trotter, 2021 and 2024 Queensland Business Leaders Hall of Fame Fellow

• Bootmakers of Brisbane [Part 1]
• Bootmakers of Brisbane [Part 2]
• The Pioneering Hide, Skin and Leather Industries of Brisbane: The Dixon Tanneries [Part 1]
• The Pioneering Hide, Skin and Leather Industries of Brisbane: The Dixon Tanneries [Part 2]
• Frank McDonnell And The Early Closing Movement
• How to make a Carton: history of paper making in Australia
• The making of a Knight: Sir Arthur Petfield 
• A Career in Cards 
• How Napoleon's pistols came to Queensland 
• Sir Arthur Petfield and 'The World Shrinkers' 

1. The Queensland Amalgamated Operative Boot Trade Union (QAOBU) was formed 1887 and by 1895 had 356 members. See Sullivan, R. J. & Sullivan, R.A, 1983, ‘The London Dock Strike, the Jondaryan Strike and the Brisbane Bootmakers' Strike’. in Murphy, D. J. (ed.), The Big Strikes: Queensland 1889-1965, Queensland University Press, St. Lucia, p.60.
2. Crook, D.P., 1958, ‘Aspects of Brisbane Society in the Eighteen Eighties; BA Thesis, School of History, University of Queensland, St. Lucia. p.1, https://doi.org/10.14264/241733; and Lawson, R., 1973, Brisbane in the 1890s, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, p.7.
3. Lawson, Ibid., p.37.
4. Markey, R., 1985, ‘New Unionism in Australia, 1880-1900, Labour History, May, No. 48, pp.15-28, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2750871
5. Stephens, A.G., 1893, The Griffilwraith : being an independent criticism of the methods and manoeuvres of the Queensland Coalition Government, 1890-93, A. J. Ross & Co., Brisbane, 
6. ‘The Editorial Mill’, 1891, Worker, Saturday 10 January, 1891, p.1.
7. The Boomerang, 8 Jan 1888, cited in Whitfield, G., 1969, ‘Industrial Conditions in Early Brisbane: Reports of the 1890s’, Queensland Heritage, Vol 1, No, 1, pp.20-3.
8. Paten J., 2005, ‘Coppertails and Silvertails: Queensland Women and Their Struggle for the Political Franchise, 1889–1905’, Queensland Review, Vol. 12, No.2, pp.23-50; Young, P., 1991, Proud to be a Rebel: The life and times of Emma Miller, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Queensland.
9. ‘Queensland: Brisbane’, Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, 21 February 1891, p.421.
10. Gibbney, H.J., 1974, 'Moreton, Berkeley Basil (1834–1924)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/moreton-berkeley-basil-4242/text6849, published first in hardcopy 1974.
11. Gill, R.W., 1981, 'Dalrymple, David Hay (1840–1912)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/dalrymple-david-hay-5871/text9987, published first in hardcopy 1981.
12. [Bowden, Bradley, 1997, “‘Some Mysterious Terror’: The Relationship between Capital and Labour in Ipswich, 1861-96.” Labour History, no. 72, pp.77–100, https://doi.org/10.2307/27516467; Drinkwater, D., 2000, ‘Glassey, Thomas (1844-1935) Senator for Queensland, 1901=02 (Protectionist‘), The Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, vol. 1, 1901-1929, Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Vic., 2000, pp.92-95; Lipke, I., 1983, 'Glassey, Thomas (1844–1936)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/glassey-thomas-6399/text10939, published first in hardcopy 1983.
13. ‘Lilian Violet Cooper’, 2024; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilian_Violet_Cooper.Edwards and Chapman Building, 2021, Wikipedia.
14. James Ferguson, Obituary, 1926, Courier Mail, Monday 26 April, p.6
15. The Boys’ Home, https://www.findandconnect.gov.au
16. Kingsbury, John James, Obituary, 1933, Courier Mail, 4 August, p.5.
17. Morrison, W. Frederick, 1888, The Aldine History of Queensland, Appendix, Aldine Publishing Company Sydney, Appendix
18. T E White, Obituary, Week. 1926, p.24; Stewart, 1988, pp.9-20; Stewart, N., 1988, ‘Consuls in Queensland: Part 1: The Colony, Journal of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland, Vol. 9, Issue 5, pp.9-20. https://www.textqueensland.com.au › item › article
19. Jordan, D., 2023, ‘Women’s Justice: Settler Colonisation and the Queensland Vote, Australian Women’s History Forum, https://awhf.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/queensland/; Mrs Leontine Cooper, Obituary, 1903, Week, Friday 20 March 1903, page 16, National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article181802514;  Jordan, 2023.\
20. Tennant, M., 1978, 'Mrs Grace Neill in the Department of Asylums, Hospitals and Charitable Institutions'. New Zealand Journal of History, 12, No 1, pp.3–16.
21. Morrison, op. cit.;  Picture Ipswich, https://www.pictureipswich.com.au/nodes/view/12707; ‘Old Identities: Mr Alexander Campbell Hunter, J.P.’, 1915, Queensland Times, Saturday 17 April, p.10.
22. ‘Mr Thos. Morrow’, 1920, The Week, Friday 25 June, p.23.
23. Death of Mr R W Thurlow: A Prominent Citizen’, 1913, Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 26 February, p.5;  Maciek, n.d., Mayors of Brisbane, https://www.everywherehistory.com/mayors-brisbane-part-5/
24. Richard Edwards, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Edwards_(Australian_politician)
25. Slaughter, L.E, 1954, Finneys: 90 years of progress, Finney Isles & Co., Brisbane.
26. MacGinley, M. R., 1986, 'McDonnell, Francis (Frank) (1863–1928)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mcdonnell-francis-frank-7343/text12747, published first in hardcopy 1986.
27. Smith, Ann G., 1981,  'Crawford, Thomas William (1865–1948)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/crawford-thomas-william-5813/text9867, published first in hardcopy 1981.
28. Rydon, J., 2000, ‘Stewart, James Charles  1850-1931’, The Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, vol. 1, 1901-1929, Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Vic., pp.100-103. https://biography.senate.gov.au/james-charles-stewart/
29. May Jordan McConnel, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Jordan_McConnel
30. Information provided by Deborah Jordan.
31. Royal Commission, l.9022+).