The Taylor brothers, Robert and William, began their foray into jam making in Camperdown in or around 1890.[1] By June of 1894 they were established in Annandale, at the corner of Booth and Trafalgar Streets, and had quickly staked their reputation on superior quality, scrupulous cleanliness and attractive packaging, including the use of glass jars.[2] The brothers Taylor sourced their labels from Pratten Brothers printers, and, so the story goes, found themselves indebted to the Prattens to the extent that an arrangement was struck which eventually saw Herbert Edward Pratten and his father-in-law, John Plant Wright, take over the jam business.[3]
Pratten entered into partnership with the Taylors on 5 March 1894. William Taylor died on 17 December 1895 and his share was purchased by the surviving partners, Pratten and Robert Taylor. J. P. Wright joined the business on 20 July 1896, and on 22 March 1897 Robert Taylor left the partnership, and assigned the goodwill of the business of “Taylor Brothers” and the right to the use of the name, to Pratten and Wright.[4]
Herbert Pratten is described as ‘a man of tireless energy’. Active in the community (for example he served as Mayor of Ashfield for three years) and astute in business, he ultimately pursued a career in politics. Elected to the Senate for New South Wales in 1917, he was returned to the house of Representatives in 1921 and served as Minister for Trade and Customs from June 1924 until his untimely death in May 1928.[5]
John Plant Wright had made his reputation as a boot manufacturer. He was a prominent and well-respected member of the business community, serving on the board of several companies, actively involved with the Chamber of Manufactures and eventually serving as an employer’s representative on the first arbitration court.[6]
Under their leadership, and with Pratten as the company’s spokesman, Taylor Brothers grew and prospered, consistently winning prizes at agricultural shows, experimenting with the export of fruit pulp, establishing an agency and pulping plant in Hobart (1897), and actively proclaiming the purity of their product and protecting their trade mark.[7] By 1906 operations included a head factory covering three frontages at Annandale, two factories in Tasmania, at Hobart and New Norfolk, an establishment in Brisbane canning pineapples, and a cannery and orchard at Cumnock, near Molong.[8] The success of the business required foresight and vigilance in a highly competitive market fuelled by ever increasing pressure from the Jam Combine.
For example, along with William and Robert Taylor, the company had also employed John and Alfred Taylor and a William Waring, all of whom left the business about October 1896 and started manufacturing jam in Broughton Street, Glebe, calling themselves “Taylor and Company”. Taylor and Company then adopted labels and wrappings which so closely resembled those of Taylor Brothers that Pratten and Wright were concerned enough for their trade and their reputation to take out an injunction requiring Taylor and Company to include a statement on their labels to the effect that they were distinct from Taylor Brothers.[9] At the end of 1898 Taylor and Company passed into the hands of William Peacock who began selling jam with labels which did not carry the disclaimer, until Pratten and Wright took Peacock to court and reaffirmed that he was required to do so.[10]
As managing director Pratten was a vocal advocate for stringent and uniform regulations to combat ‘food frauds’ and adulteration in any form including the use of chemical agents for peeling fruit, and for a federal arbitration award to ensure fair wages.[11] These views put him and Taylor Brothers in direct opposition to the Jam Combine, and its representatives Henry Jones, A. W. Palfreyman, G. B Edwards and William Peacock. Many of Pratten’s public statements imply criticism of the practises of the Combine if not personal dislike of the men involved. For example, his evidence to an enquiry into wages in the jam industry in New South Wales, held in 1909, and his statement that cut-throat interstate competition needed remedying by a federal arbitration award compelling all producers to pay fair wages, was a direct aim at the machinations of the Combine. The enquiry found that the main difficulty to establishing proper conditions ‘had been the existence of keen competition between the manufacturers themselves, that is those based in New South Wales the majority of whom were in some way associated with the Combine, ‘and the severe competition between them and the southern states’, which was also engineered by the Combine. The chairman of the enquiry concurred with Pratten, a satisfactory resolution rested with the Federal authorities.[12]
Pratten parted with Taylor Brothers around 1910, supposedly after a disagreement with J. P. Wright over the involvement of Wright’s sons in the business, but this move did not end his connection with jam.[13] In March 1914, Pratten, the brothers Henry and Cecil Tate, L. H Pattinson (chemist), George Sargent (caterer), M. Walters (fruit merchant) and William Buckingham (merchant) registered the Stanmore Preserving Company Ltd. with premises in Salisbury Road, Stanmore.[14] How long Pratten remained involved is unclear but by 1921 the business was insolvent and was eventually taken over by Henry Jones Co-operative Ltd and rebranded the Oakleaf Preserving Company Limited.[15]
Meanwhile at Taylor Brothers opposition to the Combine ‘octopus’ continued under the management of the Wrights. Untangling the whole history of Taylor Brothers and their interaction with the Jam Combine is difficult since business records are not available. But what evidence there is confirms that the company remained faithful to their principles and staunchly independent, even following the death of John P. Wright in 1912, after which his son George became the spokesman for Taylor Brothers.
An article published in the Lone Hand in 1911 described Taylor Brothers as ‘the pure food firm’ waging ‘ceaseless war’ against the ‘adulterators’:
Taylor Brothers was formed by decent men who were disgusted with the iniquity practised on the public, and who believed that in the midst of so much corruption there was a chance to make a fortune by supplying the public with pure conserves made of wholesome fruit and good sugar.[16]
The company continued to strongly oppose the use of colouring agents, adulteration with apple juice and caustic soda peeling, and any suggestion that these practises should be allowed in any Pure Foods Act without the need to declare them: ‘If apple juice and colouring improves jams, and caustic soda peeling is superior to hand peeling, what is the objection to letting the public know when they are getting a good thing?’[17] George Wright accused the Combine of ‘endeavouring to get the Pure Foods Act regulations ‘emasculated’ to allow the use of colouring matter and apple juice in jams: ‘My company refused to help them, in either matter and has instituted a vigorous campaign against the attempt to weaken the pure foods regulations’.[18]
Perhaps the biggest, and most public stoush Wright had with the Combine was over the legitimate weight of tins of jam. In 1915 a Royal Commission was appointed to enquire into the production, packaging, marketing, distribution, cold and other storage, and wholesale and retail prices of fruit and vegetables. Over the course of five months the commission took evidence from a variety of interested parties and canvassed a range of issues. George Wright’s evidence centred around the net weight of jam in tins, which demonstrated his disagreement with the practises of the Combine.[19] It was his determination to supply full weight which led to heated exchanges between Wright and other delegates to the Jam Manufacturers Conference held in Melbourne in December 1914 which resulted in his expulsion.[20] The Royal Commission’s report described the saga of the “2 lb” jam tin as ‘an interesting illustration of commercial methods’.
Prior to the 1905 Victorian Pure Food Act requirement that jam manufacturers indicate the weight of jam on the label of the tin the public had assumed that a tin of a certain size and shape was a 2 lb. tin and that it contained 2 lbs. of jam. After 1905 the legislation deemed that the tin need contain not less than 28 oz rather than the full 32 oz. Wright however insisted on supplying a full weight tin and claimed that the Combine was intent on reducing the weight of the 2 lb tin to only 27 oz. He supported his campaign and made his views public with a newspaper advertising which ran through 1915 and 1916.
The ins and outs of the 2 lb jam tin story can be followed in Wright’s evidence to the commission and in the newspaper reports.[21] The commissioners concluded that, if the tins held 28 oz there could be no legitimate excuse for any change and further: ‘The public are deceived by the practice of formally complying with the law by putting on the labels of tins of jam the weight of the contents in small type and in the background where it is difficult to read.’[22] They recommended that ‘it is desirable in the public interest that the reputed 1 lb and 2 lb tins should actually contain respectively those weights of jam’ and that the ‘weight should be printed in the same size and style of type as the name of the jam, and both weight and name should be directly associated on the label’.[23] While this result would seem to vindicate Wright’s stand, the commission had no power to interfere with the designs of the Jam Combine. The report could only reflect that ‘in trading concerns of this character it should be clearly made manifest to both producers and consumers that they are a combination of companies under different names. It should then be unreasonable to suppose that the individual companies are in competition.’[24]
To what extent Wright’s campaign against the Combine was motivated by a legitimate concern for consumers or simply fuelled by his animosity to the personalities involved with the Henry Jones Co-operative and their methods of doing in business is hard to gauge. Wright approached the Commission well prepared, armed with evidence to support his argument, and appears anxious that the facts should be clearly presented. Convinced that his cause was justified, all the same he was not above making some personal comments. He accused the Combine’s representative, A. W. Palfreyman, of threatening behaviour and the Combine of wanting to ‘smash’ any competition and have the market to themselves. On the other hand, in his evidence to the Commission, Palfeyman showed himself unwilling to co-operate, angered by the purpose of the Commission, and frustrated by questioning on issues he thought unimportant. The Age described Palfreyman as ‘far from even tempered’ and at times ‘quite warm with indignation and resentment’.[25] He was certainly unprepared to entertain criticism of the Combine’s business practises. He alleged that Wright had tried to sell Taylor Brothers to the Combine on a number of occasions and that this ‘fuss’ over weights was designed to compel the Combine to buy Wright out. He also claimed that Wright’s evidence was ‘a tissue of lies from beginning to end’, that he was ‘a crank with an axe to grind’, that he had doctored the evidence he presented to the Commission, and that Wright had ‘a reputation for causing trouble’, maintaining that H.E. Pratten had sold his interest in Taylor Brothers at a loss to be rid of his association with Wright. He concluded that ‘the trouble with a man like George Wright is that if prices are down, he says you are trying to smash him, and if prices are up the combine are exhorting undue profit.’[26] Clearly there was no love lost between the two men.
Wright and Taylor Brothers soldiered on in opposition to the Combine but in August 1923 the Daily Telegraph reported that the company could not, by reason of its liabilities, continue in business and George Wright and his son John were appointed as liquidators.[27]
Henry Jones was knighted in 1919 in recognition of his influence on the progress of Hobart and the state of Tasmania. He died suddenly in 1926, recognised as a shrewd businessman and ‘one of the foremost men in Australia.[28] Achalen Woolliscroft Palfreyman took over the reins of the Co-operative and remained in charge until his retirement in 1965. Variously described as ‘driving, independent, frugal, conservative, modest and totally dedicated to the entrepreneurial ethic’, and not just ‘confident and articulate’ but also ‘charming, dignified and warm hearted’, when he died in 1967, Palfreyman was thought to be the richest man in Australia.[29]
George Wright’s death in 1948 was unremarked.
[1] According to Chris Pratten, Herbert Edward Pratten 1865–1928: manufacturer, miner, minister (Ashfield: Ashfield and District Historical Society, 2016) the original factory was on the north side of Parramatta Road, adjacent to Johnson’s Creek. Registration of trademark NSW Government Gazette, 2 August 1893, p. 6077. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article222119558.
[2] Trade mark registration, NSW Government Gazette, 19 June 1894, p. 3946, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article222340306; Australian Star (Sydney), 22 October 1894, p. 5 visit to Annandale factory, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article227498786 and 6 May 1895, p. 8, ‘Sights and scenes of Sydney’ http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article227106529.
[3] Smith’s Weekly (Sydney), 3 December 1921, p. 2 ‘Man of the week’, source for the story that partnership proposed to cover the Taylor’s their debts. Australian Town and Country Journal, 28 March 1896, p. 21, visit to new factory in Annandale, ‘Messrs. Taylor Brothers’ Jam Factory’, mentions that Taylors had just ordered a million labels from a Sydney firm, presumably Pratten Brothers, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article71243549. Pratten Brothers printers was established in 1889, and remained under the management of Frederick Graham Pratten, H. E.’s half-brother. The business was very successful, among other publications Pratten Brothers printed the 20th edition of Mrs Maclurcan’s Cookery Book in 1930. Files relating to the registration of firms held at NSW State Archives show that F. G Pratten was also associated with Taylor Brothers as at 10 June 1903.
[4] For details of the business arrangements between Pratten, Wright and the Taylor brothers see Evening News, 16 November 1899, p. 3 ‘Taylor Brothers jams, alleged infringement of trademark’, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article113691318
[5] For Herbert Edward Pratten, see David Pope, 'Pratten, Herbert Edward (1865–1928)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pratten-herbert-edward-8100/text14139; Sydney Morning Herald (hereafter SMH), 8 May 1928, p. 11, ‘Active career’.
[6] For John Plant Wright, see Sunday Times (Sydney), 19 January 1902, p. 7 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article126428531; Daily Telegraph, 25 March 1902, p. 5, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article237348932; Evening News, 31 August 1904, p. 7 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article113296929; Daily Telegraph, 14 March 1912, p. 11 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article239155420
[7] Australian Town and Country Journal (hereafter ATCJ), 1 May 1897, p. 23 emphasis on quality and purity, free from adulteration, includes report from health inspector; SMH, 14 July 1897, p. 4 ‘Fruit pulp”; Mercury (Hobart), 1 January 1898, p. 2; ATCJ, 23 April 1898, p. 23 ‘Taylor Brothers jam’ http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article71285685; Evening News (Sydney), 28 November 1898, p. 2 ‘Sugar in jam’ letter re purity of product and support for Pure Food inspection and regulation; Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 30 March 1899, p. 3 ‘Taylor Brothers’ Jams’.
[8] Australian Star (Sydney), 24 January 1906, p. 5 ‘Local industries.’ The cannery at Cumnock was established on the orchard owned by the building contractor John Young (Burrawong). Like Pratten, Young was involved in local politics and shared similar political views. Both men were also lawn bowls enthusiasts. Young was instrumental in the development of the Annandale estate and was the first mayor of the borough of Annandale council.
[9] Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 9 October 1897, p. 14 ‘Rival jam manufacturers’, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article238433132).
[10] Evening News (Sydney), 23 November 1899, p. 3 ‘Judge finds for the plaintiffs’ http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article113697197.
[11] For food frauds see The Newsletter (Sydney), 30 June 1906, p. 2 ‘The food frauds’; Pratten emphatically denies the use of caustic soda, SMH, 3 February 1909, p. 9 ‘Jam industry’. For details of caustic soda process see The Sun (Sydney), 7 July 1911, p. 3.
[12] Australian Star (Sydney), 11 February 1909, p. 6, ‘The jam industry’.
[13] For dispute see Chris Pratten, p. 65. Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 31 March 1910, p. 9 Pratten retired last year from active participation in the business. J. P. Wright died in 1912 and according to his son George, in his evidence to the Royal Commission on Fruit, Vegetables and Jam, the Wrights had bought out Pratten before his father’s death.
[14] Established by William Robertson Ritchie and Henry Tate 1905. Chris Pratten p. 66; NSW Government Gazette, 15 August 1905, p. 5551, registration of trade mark. Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 18 March 1914, p. 12 ‘Stanmore Preserving Company’, purchased by Henry Jones in 1925, SMH, 23 January 1925, p, 11 ‘Stanmore Preserving Company’, becomes Oakleaf Preserving Co. ‘Registration of Oakleaf Preserving Company Ltd. Result of purchase of factories (Sydney and Hobart), plant, machinery and stock of SPC by Henry Jones Co-operative Ltd. Newly registered company will carry on jam and preserve manufacture at present works in Stanmore (now Bridge Road).
[15] Pratten’s involvement likely terminated by 1917 when he was elected to the Senate. In liquidation SMH, 23 November 1921, p. 15, ‘Stanmore Preserving Company’, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15974337.
[16] Lone Hand, 1 August 1911, ‘Messrs. Taylor Bros., the pure food firm’, pp. 379–385.
[17] Letter from George Wright, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 17 May 1912, p. 5 ‘Jam making’.
[18] Mercury (Hobart) 21 May 1912, p. 5 ‘Jam manufacturers and Tasmanian growers’. The first Pure Food Act in Australia was passed by the Victorian Government in 1905. NSW followed in 1908. Under the provisions of the NSW act, effective 1 January 1910, jam could not contain glucose, gelatine, starch, apple pulp or other added substances other than spices and apple juice, the latter not to exceed 4%. Harmless colouring matter was allowed in raspberry and plum jam. NSW Government Gazette, 3 November 1909, pp. 6056–6057. The ongoing debate about additives in jam was fuelled by talk of a Federal Pure Foods Act. Daily Post (Hobart) 14 September 1911, p. 2 ‘Adulteration of jams’ interview with JP Wright re Pure Food Act. Daily Telegraph (Sydney) 13 April 1912, p. 15 ‘Demand for pure jam’. See also State Library of Victoria, Victorian Parliamentary Papers data base (1851–), Report of the Royal Commission on Uniform Standards for Foods and Drugs in the States of the Commonwealth of Australia: together with evidence and appendices 1913–14, pp. li–lii, https://pov.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_GB/parl_paper/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:31812/one
[19] State Library of Victoria, Victorian Parliamentary Papers database (1851–), Royal Commission on Fruit, Vegetables and Jam: minutes of evidence https://pov.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_GB/parl_paper/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:23198/one. Wright’s evidence pp. 456–463.
[20] For reports of the goings on at the Jam Manufacturers meeting see The Age (Melbourne), 3 December 1914, p. 8 ‘Price of jam’ and 4 December 1914, p. 8, ‘Price of jam’.
[21] For example, The Newsletter (Sydney), 17 April 1915, p. 4 ‘The jam industry’; The Age (Melbourne), 19 May 1915, p. 10 “Jam’; The Leader(Melbourne), 30 October 1915, p. 11 ‘The State fruit commission’. The debate over net weight was complicated because, at the time, jam manufacturers made their own tins, not all tins were a uniform shape or made from the same gauge of tin plate and the amount that could be filled into any tin depended on the density of the jam.
[22] State Library of Victoria, Victorian Parliamentary Papers database (1851–), Report from the Royal Commission on Fruit, Vegetables and Jam, 14 October 1915, p. 35, https://pov.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_GB/parl_paper/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:23196/one
[23] Ibid., p. 36.
[24] Ibid., p. 34
[25] The Age (Melbourne), 26 June 1915, p. 13 ‘Deceptive jam tins’.
[26] For Palfeyman’s evidence see Minutes of Evidence pp. 313–314 and 489–500.
[27] Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 15 August 1924, p. 9 ‘Company news’.
[28] The Mercury (Hobart) 30 October 1926, p. 9 ‘Sudden death of Sir Henry Jones’.
[29] Canberra Times, 23 January 1965, p. 10; Australian Financial Review, https://www.afr.com/wealth/people/money-for-jam-john-elliott-s-first-big-move-into-wealth-20210927-p58v7y, originally published 26 October 1967.
No comments:
Post a Comment