Nineteenth century discourse was charged with moralistic concerns about consumption, women’s presence in the city and the ambiguous nature of the department store. The journalist W.T. Stead led this debate with his discussion of Chicago stores. The department store was perceived as a marginal space in which conventional inhibitions were relaxed. Women’s visibility and relative independence provoked anxiety, as did the mingling of different social classes. The new visual codes of fashion made class distinctions illegible, and were often read as indicators of sexual availability. It has been argued that department stores eroded the authority of fathers and husbands. Thus, consumerism was widely perceived as a threat to the social order.

Department stores had a major impact on female employment, not only due to the number of women who worked as shop girls; women were also employed as buyers, and were thus involved in crucial aesthetic and economic decision-making. In one respect, however, the spatial organisation of Bainbridge’s store in Newcastle was not liberating. In common with many Victorian department stores, most of Bainbridge’s employees lived on the premises. This made members of staff heavily dependent upon their employers, and many social commentators were critical of this form of paternalism. From the point of view of store owners, this situation was doubly advantageous: by providing lodgings they were able to pay lower wages and to monitor the conduct of their employees. Living-in permitted long opening hours, reduced labour turnover and instilled discipline. Bainbridge’s enforced a strict division of gender in order to prevent sexual impropriety: women were housed above the shop premises on Market Street, but from 1891 a separate hostel was provided for male employees. Located in Ellison Place and patriotically named Albert House, this accommodated 150 men and boys between the ages of 16 and 37, who were subject to strict codes of discipline. All members of staff were required to be indoors by 10 p.m. and all were expected to attend church on Sundays. Bainbridge’s favoured Methodists when recruiting new staff.

Paradoxically, Bainbridge’s offered the highly unusual service of trade union banner manufacturing, a fact which indicates that while nothing was spared in meeting public demand – even to the point of facilitating working class political agitation – the same liberties were not permitted among the firm’s own staff. Bainbridge’s regularly arranged social and sporting ventures for its male employees, including football matches, but these were essentially team-building exercises designed to create a more unified workforce.