In 1869 Joseph Rowntree, the son of a grocer, went into partnership with his brother Henry who owned the ‘Cocoa, Chocolate & Chicory Works’ in York.On the death of Henry in 1883, Joseph became the sole owner, and with the help of products such as fruit pastilles, chocolate drops, fruit gums and jelly babies he turned a small company into a thriving international enterprise, employing 4,000 people by the turn of the century.
Joseph Rowntree was a Quaker and was determined to understand the causes of poverty and do what he could to address them and alleviate the effects.As early as 1863 he produced a statistical study on the links between crime and poverty, and two years later he published a second study, Pauperism in England and Wales.His son Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree followed in the footsteps of his father and carried out a landmark investigation into poverty in York itself, published in 1901 as Poverty, A Study of Town Life
Influenced by this research, and by his Quaker principles, Joseph took measures to improve the quality of life of his own employees.He provided a library and free education for workers under seventeen, and employed a social welfare officer, doctor and dentist in his factory.He donated £10,000 to establish a workers’ pension fund, and gave the workers a say in the appointment of their immediate supervisors.
A united village life
In 1901 Joseph Rowntree purchased 123 acres at New Earswick on the edge of York to build houses for his employees and other working people.The planner Raymond Unwin and the architect Barry Parker were commissioned to produce an overall plan for a new 'garden' village, influenced by the success of George Cadbury’s Bourneville, and by the ideas of Ebenezer Howard.
The houses at New Earswick were of a good quality and had gardens with fruit trees and enough land to grow vegetables. At least one tenth of the land was to be reserved for parks and other green spaces.
Joseph Rowntree had a fear of the type of charity which produced dependency and resentment.Rents in New Earswick would be affordable to attract working people ‘without, however, placing them in the position of being recipients of a bounty’ and should therefore represent a commercial return.Initially this was set at 3% of the capital; later it was found that 5% was necessary (Feargus O’Connor in his Chartist experiment had come to the same conclusion half a century earlier).
A Trust was established, controlled by the Rowntree family, and the Trust Deed enshrined its social mission:
Nothing may be done under the powers hereby conferred which may prevent the growth of civic interest, and a sense of civic responsibility, amongst those who may live in any community existing on the property of the Trust.[1]
The principles of housing management were inspired by Octavia Hill.Rent collection, problems of arrears, care of property, selection and transfer of tenants, welfare and the proper introduction of tenants into a new community were placed in the hands of one person.Prospective tenants were carefully selected, and later it was acknowledged that ‘families apparently incapable of maintaining a satisfactory home’ were kept away, thus avoiding ‘the social problems which often hamper the growth of community life in publicly-provided estates.’[2]
Rowntree donated a splendid Folk Hall, and at its opening he remarked, ‘It is often said that Village life is dull, and so I fear it generally is, but there is no occasion for its being so.’He hoped the hall would be used for religious services, an adult school, billiards, ‘popular Lectures with the Magic Lantern’, musical gatherings, debating or literary societies, photographic exhibitions, exhibitions of a horticultural society, political meetings, and become the ‘Village Club’.In conformity with his Quaker principles, Rowntree decreed that no manufacture or sale of ‘intoxicating liquors’ was to take place.
Rowntree opposed proposals to establish several different places of worship.‘Our action has been determined by the wish to create as far as possible a united Village life, and to banish from it everything that tends to the creation of separate interests.’ [3]
The question of community control
Joseph Rowntree hoped that New Earswick would become a self-governing community.He wrote in a private memorandum: ‘I do not want to establish communities bearing the stamp of charity but rather of rightly ordered and self-governing communities – self-governing, that is, within the broad limits laid down by the Trust.’[4]
He included within the Trust Deed explicit powers to encourage ‘any company or other association formed to promote the corporate or co-operative ownership of dwelling-houses by the occupiers thereof’ by making grants, loans or by taking shares.He recognised the difficulties of community decision-making but did not regard them as insuperable.
Man is a somewhat quarrelsome animal, and it requires some thought and wisdom for companies of persons to work harmoniously together.Most of us have to learn how to give and take, and to know how far it is wise and right to press our own views.If a meeting or a committee comes to a pretty united decision which we think to be mistaken, it may yet often be the right course for us to accept such decision and to do our best to make it work smoothly.[5]
The Earswick Council first met in 1904. It ‘discussed everything from the name of the growing village to the problem of overflowing rain butts.’[6] At the opening of the Folk Hall in 1907 Seebohm Rowntree promised that the Village Council, as it was by then known, would be ‘thoroughly democratic’; it was hoped ‘it would take full responsibility and not wait for initiative to come from the trustees.’[7]
However, it turned out that the Village Council was to be no more than a ‘consultative body’, initially consisting of ten members; nine elected by residents (men and women), and one appointed by the Trustees who owned and controlled the estate.The care and management of the Folk Hall as well as recreational spaces, the library, and associated social and education work was in the hands of the Council, which was also invited to ‘recommend improvements’ to housing and community facilities.[8]
The constitution of the Village Council was adopted in 1907, and in 1910 was amended to increase the rights of the villagers in determining any changes to the Council’s constitution.However in 1935, ‘a vigorous exchange of views with the trustees took place’, and the outcome was that the Trustees could amend the council’s constitution without consent of electors, provided they gave three months notice.
The Council’s minute books show early struggles with low attendance at lectures and concerts.They also record disputes with the Trust: ‘experiments with flat-roofed and concrete dwellings were deplored’ by the representatives of the villagers.
During the 1920s and 1930s the Council ‘often desired that it should have a more positive part to play in village administration.’At one time it proposed that is should take over responsibility for services which would normally be statutory responsibilities but which were provided by the Trustees.The money would be provided by the Trustees but the management undertaken by the Council.This idea was firmly rejected: ‘The Trustees were clear that the separation of the functions of management from financial responsibility would prove unworkable.’
But the problem remained. The Trust was not just landlord but also controlled statutory services, yet the community had no recourse through elected representatives.Moreover, the income the Council received from the Folk Hall was only just sufficient to meet running costs. The building had been provided free and the Trust was responsible for repairs and redecoration.‘However sincere the efforts to avoid paternalism, it must remain true that the community life of the village is thus largely dependent either directly or indirectly on money provided by the Trust.’ [9]
There were attempts to avoid a sense of dependency.In 1935 the villagers asked the Trust to extend the Folk Hall.‘Before definitely embarking on the project the Trustees desired to be assured that the residents would contribute in some small measure to the cost.’The residents contributed £500, an impressive amount at that time.[10]
Up until 1937 two representatives from the Council were allowed to attend Trust meetings, but this was discontinued on the grounds that the activities of the Trust had broadened beyond New Earswick.Instead, every year the Trustees and Council members spent an evening together, where the Trustees presented audited accounts and the Council presented its annual report.
In 1942 Seebohm Rowntree felt able to declare that the aims of the model village had been achieved. ‘I think it may be said that the Founder’s hopes with regard to the kind of village that he would like to see established in Earswick have been amply fulfilled.There is a strong feeling of communal responsibility among those living there.’[11]That may have been true, but the larger object of achieving a self-determining community had not been realised.
Joseph Rowntree knew from the outset that mistakes would be made but was confident that New Earswick would eventually prove successful:
We are starting upon this new experiment fully conscious that mistakes may be made, and that we shall have to gain wisdom by experience.It was said of a great General that he made more use of his defeats than some Generals made of their victories.If we move steadily forward, unselfishly seeking the common good of all, I do not think any mistakes we shall make need interfere with our ultimate success.’[12]
It has certainly inspired others over the last hundred years.In 1954 Michael Young, who later went on the found the Open University and the School for Social Entrepreneurs, among much else, paid a visit to New Earswick.In an essay ’Changing Life in a Village Community’published in The Listener he outlined a theory of community, which still has resonance.[13]
The land question
To the end of his life Joseph Rowntree regarded investigation into the causes of poverty as of primary importance.As his private memorandum shows he was aware of the debates on land ownership and land value taxation inspired by Henry George:
Every Social writer knows the supreme importance of questions connected with the holding and taxation of land, but for one person who attempts to master this question there are probably thousands who devote their time and strengths to relieving poverty and its accompanying evils.
I have already alluded to the Land question.Such aspects of it as the nationalisation of land, or of the taxation of land values, or the appropriation of the unearned increment – all need a treatment far more thorough than they have yet received.If one or other of the Directors and Trustees were able to collaborate with competent investigators and workers upon these questions, it would be quite suitable for large sums to be appropriated in this direction.[14]
The economic theories of Henry George have largely fallen out of favour, and political attempts to implement his ideas by Joseph Chamberlain, Lloyd George and Ramsey MacDonald failed to come to fruition.However, in recent years, the interest in community asset ownership, including community land trusts, and the various and vigorous forms of community enterprise and community-led regeneration that have emerged, demonstrate that Joseph Rowntree’s instincts were indeed acute and forward-looking.
[1]Joseph Rowntree Village Trust Deed of Foundation, 1904.
[2] L E Waddilove, One Man’s Vision: The Story of the Joseph Rowntree Village Trust, 1954, p 67
[3] Joseph Rowntree, An Address on the occasion of the opening of the Folk Hall, Earswick, 5th Oct., 1907
[4]Joseph Rowntree, ‘Memorandum’, (1904)
[5] Joseph Rowntree, An Address
[6] L E Waddilove, p 78
[7]Yorkshire Gazette Sat 20 July 1907
[8]New Earswick, York, Joseph Rowntree Village Trust, 1913
[9] L E Waddilove. pp 82-86
[10]Souvenir Programme of the Opening of the Folk Hall Extension, 1935
[11]Memorandum on the Joseph Rowntree Village Trust, B. S. Rowntree 1942
[12] Joseph Rowntree, An Address
[13]Michael Young, ‘Changing Life in a Village Community’, in The Listener, September 23 1954
[14] Joseph Rowntree, ‘Memorandum’, (1904)
