Search

Australian studies of industrial, labour and economic history in the second half of the 19th century have long relied on manufacturing statistics published annually in the colonial Statistical Registers. This reliance could become even more pronounced through the influence of Professor N. G. Butlin, who drew heavily upon these sources. This article suggests, however, that these Statistic Registers are unreliable and indeed—for certain purposes—misleading. If this is so, some popular historical interpretations will have to be reviewed. We shall have to reconsider why Victoria adopted a protective tariff in the 1860s and also reconsider the subsequent effects of the tariff. We shall have to re-examine the effects of the gold-rushes on the growth of manufacturing. We shall have to reject much of Butlin's pioneering work on the rise of manufacturing in Victoria and Australia between 1861 and 1901, and we shall have to reconsider the role of manufacturing in the boom of the 1880s and the recovery from the depression of the 1890s. The statistics and the estimates based on them are also relevant to such questions as how manufacturing influenced the growth of cities, how urban living standards moved, and how the economic and social climate affected the growth of unionism and welfare legislation. Moreover, unless the manufacturing statistics are handled with a new discretion, the infection of error may spread to problems in local history, industrial history, colonial and national history; for these statistics are as basic to industrial history as detailed voting returns are to political history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]