Why Is a Public Holiday Named After Banks? An Accident of Drafting

The British legislation of 1871 did not create a general public holiday and did not give anybody a right to a day off. It specified days on which banks would close, and it did so because bills of exchange fell due on particular days and closing the banks required a legal provision to prevent defaults on obligations that could not be met. The effect was broader than the wording, because commerce depended on banks and much of it stopped when they did, so the days functioned as general holidays in practice. The name records that drafting history rather than any intention about leisure, and it has survived in Britain and Ireland while other countries use terms describing the thing itself.

The days chosen fall into recognisable categories everywhere:

• •Religious observances, which persist in law long after observance declines
• •National days marking independence, unification or a founding event
• •Commemorations of war, loss or liberation
• •Days honouring labour, which are politically charged in several countries
• •Seasonal days with pre-modern origins attached to later justifications
• •Days created to fill gaps in the calendar where a long stretch has none

The legal position is more limited than most people assume and differs sharply between countries. In Britain there is no general statutory right to take these days off or to be paid extra for working them, and entitlement depends on the contract of employment, with the days commonly counted within the statutory annual leave allowance rather than added to it. Many countries do guarantee them, with premium pay for those required to work and a substitute day where the date falls at a weekend. Essential services operate throughout everywhere. Retail has moved from near-total closure to near-normal trading over three decades in most countries, which has shifted the burden onto exactly the workers least able to refuse it.

The economic argument about these days is confidently made in both directions and the evidence is weaker than either side admits. Closing offices, factories and building sites reduces output for a day, which is the straightforward cost, and studies commissioned to make that case produce large figures by multiplying daily output by the number of days. Against that, retail, hospitality, transport and tourism gain substantially, since people spend money they would not otherwise spend and travel they would not otherwise take. Output lost in some sectors is frequently made up either side of the break rather than being lost outright. And the estimates are sensitive to assumptions that are rarely stated, which is why figures published around any proposal to add a day should be read with the commissioning body in mind.

The number of these days differs by a factor of two or more between comparable countries, and the reasons are historical and political rather than economic. Countries with a strong Catholic tradition generally retain more religious dates in law. Federal states may have national days plus regional ones, so the total depends on where a person lives. Some countries move days to the nearest Monday to create long weekends, while others keep the actual date whatever day it falls on. Governments add days to mark events and occasionally remove them to increase working time, which is always contested and has caused serious political trouble more than once. Comparisons of total leave are misleading unless annual leave entitlement is counted alongside.

The British name records legislation closing banks so that bills of exchange would not fall due, rather than any intention to grant leisure, and the rest of the economy stopped because it depended on them. There is no general statutory right in Britain to take these days off or to be paid extra, unlike in many countries. The number varies by a factor of two between comparable states for historical and political reasons.