* Indicates Petitioner’s incorrect spelling Petition - to blow Steam Whistle Prayer 15 March 1872 “The Memorial of the undersigned Miners and other residents in the City of Sandhurst Sheweth That your Memorialists have been in the habit of dealing with Messrs. Benjamin Clifton and John Mall venders* of Saveloys, Hot Potatoes &c &c who bring them almost to our doors at a convenient time each night and save us a great deal of trouble by suppling* us with our suppers ready cooked and hot instead of many of us being under the necessity* after a hard days* work to come into Sandhurst to purchase raw meat & then go home to cook it or go to a Shanty to obtain a much less relishable meal where we are necessitated to purchase drink. That many of us reside a distance from the road and the whistle is the only means whereby we can tell of the arrival in our neighborhood* of the venders. That we have been informed these venders have had notice to discontinue the use of the whistle by which we shall be debarred, in fact robbed, of the service they render us and in many instances we shall suffer great injustice. Your Memorialists can safely assert* that those who complain of annoyance (p.2) from the sound of the whistle are a very small portion of the inhabitants and they are not aware of the benefits conferred upon us. We your Memorialists therefore pray that you will take into consideration the inconvenience we shall be put to by the discontinuance of the signal given us by the whistle and that you will rescind any order that may have been issued* by you for its discontinuance. And your Memorialists will ever pray-“ Notes 15 March 1872 Saveloy Petition This Petition contained 152 signators (all male except for three women) who described themselves as “Miners and other residents”. They obviously highly valued the services of Benjamin Clifton and John Mall, their local “Saveloys, Hot Potatoes &c” vendors. (See the digitised version of Clifton’s letter, which accompanied this petition.) The petitioners’ logical arguments were that these vendors provided them with “our suppers ready cooked and hot” thereby saving them the need to go shopping and cook “after a hard days work”. They also provided them with the option of eating at home rather than at a “Shanty…where we are necessitated to purchase drink.” Overall, the language used in the Prayer was very intelligent, well-phrased and emotive in places- for example “we shall suffer great injustice.” It was surprising to see ‘saveloys’ being the name given at that time to the type of sausage they could purchase; this means it was a term used already in the nineteenth century. Their arguments strongly suggest that these petitioners were single men who had to fend for themselves. If they had been married, they would have had no need to shop or cook, or use the vendor’s services, because duties were strictly defined for both sexes, according to Western society’s nineteenth century norms. This petition, therefore, confirms the pattern of a local imbalance of the sexes, as shown in the 1871 Victorian Census. (See Hibbins, Fahey and Askew, Local History: a Handbook for Enthusiasts, Allen and Unwin, 1985, pp. 89-90.)
Transcript
* Indicates Petitioner’s incorrect spelling
Petition - to blow Steam Whistle Prayer 15 March 1872 “The Memorial of the undersigned Miners and other residents in the City of Sandhurst Sheweth That your Memorialists have been in the habit of dealing with Messrs. Benjamin Clifton and John Mall venders* of Saveloys, Hot Potatoes &c &c who bring them almost to our doors at a convenient time each night and save us a great deal of trouble by suppling* us with our suppers ready cooked and hot instead of many of us being under the necessity* after a hard days* work to come into Sandhurst to purchase raw meat & then go home to cook it or go to a Shanty to obtain a much less relishable meal where we are necessitated to purchase drink. That many of us reside a distance from the road and the whistle is the only means whereby we can tell of the arrival in our neighborhood* of the venders. That we have been informed these venders have had notice to discontinue the use of the whistle by which we shall be debarred, in fact robbed, of the service they render us and in many instances we shall suffer great injustice. Your Memorialists can safely assert* that those who complain of annoyance (p.2) from the sound of the whistle are a very small portion of the inhabitants and they are not aware of the benefits conferred upon us. We your Memorialists therefore pray that you will take into consideration the inconvenience we shall be put to by the discontinuance of the signal given us by the whistle and that you will rescind any order that may have been issued* by you for its discontinuance. And your Memorialists will ever pray-“ Notes
15 March 1872 Saveloy Petition
This Petition contained 152 signators (all male except for three women) who described
themselves as “Miners and other residents”. They obviously highly valued the services of
Benjamin Clifton and John Mall, their local “Saveloys, Hot Potatoes &c” vendors. (See the
digitised version of Clifton’s letter, which accompanied this petition.) The petitioners’
logical arguments were that these vendors provided them with “our suppers ready cooked and
hot” thereby saving them the need to go shopping and cook “after a hard days work”. They also
provided them with the option of eating at home rather than at a “Shanty…where we are
necessitated to purchase drink.” Overall, the language used in the Prayer was very intelligent,
well-phrased and emotive in places- for example “we shall suffer great injustice.” It was
surprising to see ‘saveloys’ being the name given at that time to the type of sausage they could
purchase; this means it was a term used already in the nineteenth century.
Their arguments strongly suggest that these petitioners were single men who had to fend for
themselves. If they had been married, they would have had no need to shop or cook, or use the
vendor’s services, because duties were strictly defined for both sexes, according to Western
society’s nineteenth century norms. This petition, therefore, confirms the pattern of a local
imbalance of the sexes, as shown in the 1871 Victorian Census.
(See Hibbins, Fahey and Askew, Local History: a Handbook for Enthusiasts, Allen and Unwin,
1985, pp. 89-90.)
* Indicates Petitioner’s incorrect spelling
To make sense of why these Petitioners penned their concerns to Sandhurst Council, and what success they did or did not have, numerous other sources held at BRAC were examined. The Council’s Minute Book, 22 March 1872, vol. 3, p. 417, VPRS 16269, records only in the list of Incoming Correspondence- “B Clifton 15/3 with Petition. Read only.” There is no follow-up mention of the Petition in the following months’ Minutes of meetings. We are given no clue anywhere on the actual Petition or Clifton’s letter, as to what further action was to be taken. (Quite often, the Town Clerk would write a notation actually on documents, saying what follow up was to occur.) The Council’s Committee Minutes, 1872, vol. 9, VPRS 16342, made no mention of the Petition’s issues before or after the date it was written. Bendigo Court’s Cause List-Civil, January-May 1872, vol. 4, No VPRS No., did not have reference to Clifton or Mall appearing in front of the Magistrate charged with causing a public nuisance, or a similar “crime”, which the whistle blowing may have been perceived as in the nineteenth century. Sandhurst/Bendigo Rate Books, vols. 16 and 17, 1872 and 1873, VPRS 16267, shed a little light onto the two vendors. In 1872, Benjamin Clifton, a baker by occupation, was the occupier of a “land and store” located at Lyttleton Terrace, valued at £22 and owned by John Mall. The following year, Mall is still listed as this property’s owner, but a different baker occupied the premises. There are no other entries for either Clifton or Mall as occupiers or owners of a property in Sandhurst after those years. Did they both get disheartened because their enterprising door-to-door delivery was halted? A related record, the Sandhurst, Castlemaine, and Echuca Directory 1872-73, p. 35, listed “Clifton, Benjamin, pieman” as the occupier of a Lyttleton Terrace property in the block between Mundy and Bernal (now Chapel) Streets. The Council’s other Incoming Correspondence, January-April 1872, Box 6, shortly before and after the petition was written, contained no other relevant correspondence. However, in December 1871 Benjamin Clifton appealed to Sandhurst Council for permission to continue to have a “stand” opposite the Shamrock Hotel. He had conducted business there “for some time”, but the police had told him that “I could not continue to stand there”. He assured the Council that “My machine does not whistle nor create any other noise or nuisance”, and he always closed when the Shamrock did. The Town Clerk’s notation at the bottom of Clifton’s letter reads “Not entertained”. (Clifton to Sandhurst Council, 22 December 1871, Box 5, Sandhurst-Bendigo Inwards Correspondence, BRAC.) This refusal probably led to Clifton making his business mobile- but he needed to use a whistle then to communicate with his customers. This necessity resulted in the issue referred to in the Petition’s prayer- “those who complain of annoyance from the sound of the whistle”. These two pieces of correspondence read together tell the story of an enterprising man who was thwarted by nineteenth century officialdom.
