The sections dealing with shops also deserve a word of notice. The necessity for further legislation was based by the Chief Secretary on the ground that under the existing law Municipal Councils were not bound to give effect to petitions received from a majority of shopkeepers, and could only bind their own districts. Besides, the penalties imposed for contravention of any law or bye-law had, in many cases, been so small that shopkeepers had been able to ignore it with practical impunity. He therefore proposed that petitions should in future be addressed either to the Governor or to the local authorities, that a metropolitan district should be constituted so as to render possible uniformity in the hours of closing shops, and that the penalties should be on a {141} fixed scale. These proposals were embodied in the Act, as were others which provided that assistants in shops should have a weekly half-holiday, and that women and boys should not be employed for more than a fixed number of hours in a week or day, nor for more than five hours without an interval for meals, and should have the use of adequate sitting accommodation. These provisions, however, were not to apply to the categories of shops excluded from the operation of previous Acts unless extended to them under regulations made by the Governor in Council. Soon after the passage of the Act a strong feeling arose among the shopkeepers of Melbourne and its suburbs that, as assistants had to receive a weekly half-holiday, shops should be closed upon one afternoon in the week; but opinions differed as to whether the day should be Saturday or Wednesday. The shopkeepers in the city were disposed to favour the former, those in the suburbs were divided in their views.