Maxine Darnell | Attaining the Australian Dream: The Starr-Bowkett Way | Labour History, 91

Attaining the Australian Dream: The Starr-Bowkett Way

Maxine Darnell^*

The ability to easily access cheap finance is one, if not the, most pressing determinants of a person's ability to achieve some degree of economic and even social independence. This is most significant with respect to housing finance. Loan limits, high interest rates and an unwillingness on the part of the formal financial sector to lend to lower income earners would have doomed this sector of the population to a life of tenancy without co-operative finance schemes such as Starr-Bowkett societies. Starr-Bowketts are co-operative, non-profit financial institutions that provide interest-free loans to their members and operate on the principle of mutual self-help as espoused by Dr T.E. Bowkett in 1843. This paper examines the growth of these societies in New South Wales over the period 1900–30, and considers the impact that the existence of and growth in these societies had on extending the economic capacity of those neglected by the formal financial sector.

The Australian dream of a house on a quarter-acre block with room for a shed, a couple of chooks and the ubiquitous rotary clothes line dates back to the post-World War I period, when population pressures and lack of rental properties combined with property tax changes rapidly increased the rate of home ownership from about 30 per cent at the beginning of the twentieth century to 40 per cent by 1930 and then to over 70 per cent in the 1960s.¹ One of the major problems that faced many of those aspiring to attain the Australian dream was an inability to access housing finance. Loan limits and an unwillingness on the part of the formal financial sector to lend to lower income earners and women would have doomed this sector of the population to a life of tenancy and dependency if it had not been for co-operative finance schemes. Co-operative finance encompasses credit unions and various types of building societies, co-operative, permanent and terminating. This paper concentrates on one specific form of terminating building society, Starr-Bowkett Societies, and examines the growth of these societies in New South Wales (NSW) over the period 1900–30, their membership, their importance within the co-operative finance sector and the extent to which the societies followed the ideals espoused by their progenitor, Thomas Bowkett.

This time period has been selected as the first three decades of the twentieth century witnessed substantial growth in the number, membership levels and geographic spread of Starr-Bowkett societies. This rate of growth was such that their number and importance within the housing finance market overwhelmed that of the more well-known permanent building society model. Yet despite this, Starr-Bowketts have received little attention in either the literature examining the housing finance sector or that concerned with the co-operative movement. The omission of Starr-Bowkett societies within the latter literature may be explained by a lack of understanding of the true nature of the societies, which in turn may be a reflection of a general ignorance regarding not just their manner of operation but more substantially their actual existence. In the few places where Starr-Bowketts are mentioned the information provided is sparse and tends to argue that such societies were always only a small part of the mortgage market, implying that on this basis no further analysis is understandable and justifiable.

As this article will show, this judgement is far from being correct, especially during the period under review. In many places Starr-Bowketts are subsumed within discussions on building societies and co-operative building societies without understanding the important differences that exist between these three models. A further constraint on the recognition of the importance of Starr-Bowkett societies in finance provision is the negative publicity that was generated, particularly in the 1960s when a number of Starr-Bowkett societies collapsed under the management of unscrupulous operators. The motivations of these operators were clearly not governed by the principles of co-operation and non-profit that direct the management of true Starr-Bowkett societies. But there was nothing new in unscrupulous characters starting societies supposed to be for the benefit of members. In 1850 Thomas Bowkett warned of those societies that 'are set on foot by lawyers and artful money-lenders. Trickery and deception are therefore matters of course to them'.²

Two publications that discuss Starr-Bowkett societies in detail are M.R. Hill's Housing Finance in Australia and E. Balnave's Review of the Operations and Future of Starr-Bowkett Type Building Societies;³ however, both exhibit a similar deficiency. Both provide a potted history of Starr-Bowkett societies, acknowledge the importance of Starr-Bowketts in the provision of housing finance over permanent building societies up to 1930 yet neither quantify this importance. This lack is understandable in both cases, given that the focus of Hill is to examine housing finance in the immediate post-World War II period, and that of Balnave is to examine the future of Starr-Bowkett societies after the collapse of, and subsequent scandals involving various loan fund companies associated with these societies in the 1960s.

Although Starr-Bowkett societies existed, and continue to exist in all Australian states other than Tasmania, a number of factors preclude a wide-ranging, cross-state comparison of the societies within this article. The first factor rests upon the fact that Starr-Bowkett societies were and continue to be controlled under state rather than federal legislation. Therefore each state has had distinct, although similar, legislation which has directed the growth and place of these societies in their respective financial systems. Any comparison of these differing Acts, and their impact on the growth and spread of the societies, is beyond the scope of any single article.

A second factor constraining an Australia-wide examination is the lack of detailed archival material left by those societies operating outside of New South Wales. Although the annual reports of many societies are lodged in state archives and the National Library of Australia, the only extant detailed set of books found to date detailing the life of a Starr-Bowkett Society are those of the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Society of Sydney.⁴ Given these constraints this article relies heavily upon the NSW Reports of the Registrar of Friendly Societies (later of Co-operatives) to trace the growth and importance of Starr-Bowkett societies, and on the Newtown-Enmore Society records to analyse who was accessing this form of finance. In time this will provide a point of comparison when the histories of Starr-Bowkett societies in other states are completed.

Starr-Bowkett societies are today relatively unknown and comprise only a very small proportion of the overall Australian financial sector, so their study may seem irrelevant, especially in these times of globalised and impersonal finance. But such a study is relevant as, in their hey-day during the first three decades of the twentieth century, Starr-Bowkett societies were a major provider of finance and provided the basis for the co-operative building society model that was to be promoted and guaranteed by the NSW government in the 1930s. This article will address the deficiencies noted above by quantifying the growth of Starr-Bowketts in New South Wales over the period 1900–30, examine why this form of finance predominated during this period, the role of these societies in providing housing and other finance, and the extent to which they brought a degree of economic independence to those outside of the formal financial sector's purview. In examining the operation and membership of the societies it will also be considered how far they went in meeting Bowkett's intentions of making every mechanic a freeholder.

Newtown & Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-op Societes Ltd, Enmore Road, Enmore

Photographer: Jacqui Hunt, Sydney 2006

Starr-Bowkett Societies: A Brief Introduction

Before progressing any further a brief description and background history of Starr-Bowkett societies is warranted. Starr-Bowkett societies are a form of co-operative finance whereby members pool their savings through the payment of monthly subscriptions, the level of which depends upon the number of shares held by the member. For example, a current member would pay $48 per share at the rate of 25 cents per share per month, over 16 years, and each share held would entitle the member to an interest free loan of $100. A member holding 100 shares would contribute $25 monthly, be entitled to a loan of $100,000 when drawn in the ballot and in 16 years would pay share subscriptions of $4,800.⁵ Once the requisite numbers of members have registered (usually about 499) these pooled savings are then used to make loans, or more correctly 'appropriations', to members of the society. These loans are free of interest and are allocated on the basis of a ballot which all members of the society have an equal chance of winning, as the result of the ballot is not determined by the duration or size of membership. The member takes no further part in the ballots once they have received an appropriation and begins to repay their loan in monthly instalments on top of their monthly subscriptions until the loan is repaid. Members keep paying their subscriptions until their shares are paid for which usually takes about 12–16 years. Once all members have repaid their loans the society is terminated under the Rules of the Society (which in turn are governed by state legislation) and members receive back the total of their subscriptions minus management charges. Any profit made by the society is also distributed amongst members according to the number of shares held. These profits are derived from the sale of appropriations at premiums, transfer fees and bank interest. All loans were, and continue to be, secured by mortgage over real property; however, the loans can be used for a myriad of purposes, which does not follow the intention of Bowkett to make freeholders of the lower classes.

Starr-Bowkett societies represent the most pure form of co-operative finance, as there is no interest paid on either the subscriptions paid (an enforced savings plan) or the loan received, no moneys are accessed outside of the society for the purpose of lending and the societies are non-profit making. The three features of non-profit making, lack of interest payments and lack of outside finance clearly distinguish the Starr-Bowkett model from the permanent co-operative and other terminating building society models.

Starr-Bowkett societies had their genesis in the work of Thomas Edward Bowkett. In London during the 1840s and 1850s Bowkett devised and promoted through publications and lectures a scheme whereby low-income earners could acquire housing finance and therefore become freeholders.⁶ The distinctive features of Bowkett's scheme, which had its first manifestation as 'Poplar Freehold Provident Societies', were the very small level of subscriptions required of share holders and the lack of interest charged or earned, which allowed the benefits of building societies to be extended to the lower-paid members of society. Bowkett outlined six principles to guide those societies developed on his plan:

1^st Obtaining the fullest advantage of combination.
2^nd Lending money without interest.
3^rd Having no fines, and no forfeitures.
4^th Exclusion of all offices of emolument.
5^th Giving the poorest members the greatest advantages.
6^th Returning to any member the whole of his subscriptions whenever he chooses to withdraw from the Society.⁷

By following these principles Bowkett believed that new societies would avoid what he saw as the worst facets of existing societies, such as a lack of control by members, the high level of subscriptions required and the charging of interest.

The rate of growth in Bowkett's societies was slow until Richard Starr, entrepreneur extraordinaire, came along in the 1860s and revamped Bowkett's schema to make it more user-friendly; however, the changes that he wrought were to lead to charges of gambling and that the revised scheme would allow promoters (Starr in particular) to feather their own nests at the expense of members. These concerns would lead in 1894 to the formation of new societies being banned in England. Starr's major amendment was to force members who did not wish to take up their appropriation to sell it to the society which would then auction off the appropriation to the highest bidder, who may then on-sell, again only to the society. The result was that many societies never made any advances — hence the 'lottery' or 'gambling' aspect which has plagued Starr-Bowketts in reputation, and for some societies in reality, ever since. In Bowkett's scheme a member who did not wish to take up their appropriation would transfer their advance to an existing member. This ability still exists in current societies.

The other major variation that Starr made to Bowkett's plan was to allow societies to borrow money in order to make loans and to hasten the rate at which appropriations were made. The length of time involved in getting a loan, up to 13 years, proved to be a hindrance to Starr-Bowketts attracting a wider clientele, especially as access to finance became easier. The introduction by Starr of societies being able to borrow led to major irregularities in England at the time and subsequently in Australia in the late 1920s and then in the post-war era. This innovation was to lead many Starr-Bowkett's closer to the standard terminating building society form and in the 1960s the more 'dodgy' of the societies (the ones that got the most adverse publicity) became Loan Fund companies.

It must be stated here that a number of early Starr-Bowkett societies, including the Newcastle Starr-Bowkett, developed a terminating scheme on purpose in order to meet the unmet demand for housing finance during the 1920s.⁸ The Newtown-Enmore group established the Newtown, Marrickville and General Co-operative Building Society in the late 1930s for a similar reason and, it can be argued, to take advantage of government encouragement given to such societies after the passing of the Housing Improvement Act in 1936.⁹

Although only the name Starr-Bowkett is used, societies can be delineated according to how closely they follow the principles of Bowkett, or to the extent to which they are aligned with the Starr model. This delineation comes down to two main factors: first, whether or not the society borrowed funds for loans; and second, whether or not the rate of subscriptions increased once a loan was repaid. Both of these variations by Starr were introduced in order to hasten the rate at which appropriations could be made. During the period under review, only a few societies calling themselves Starr-Bowketts adopted the first strategy whereas nearly two-thirds adopted the second. The remainder, including the Newtown-Enmore society, bore a greater resemblance to Bowkett societies by only relying on subscriptions as a source of loan moneys.¹⁰ The other distinguishing factor between the variants is the levels of payment made to the directors of the society which Starr introduced in contradiction to Bowkett's principle of 'no offices of emolument'. On this point all societies followed Starr to a greater or lesser degree. The more 'Bowkett' a society the lower the payment to directors — for example, the Newtown-Enmore Society currently pays an honorarium of $15 to its directors for each appropriation meeting attended. The closer a society was run along the lines of a Bowkett society the less likely was the chance that the society was established as a money making venture, viz. a Starr society, and therefore the less likely was the chance of members losing through 'dodgy' practices. During the 1920s the most common of these 'dodgy' practices was for one person to be society secretary, solicitor and valuator (in total contradiction to Bowkett's plan), for loans to be made to non-existent members or dedicated loans not to reach the named members, directors receiving large payments and/or loans above that allowed by their level of membership, and inconsistencies in the conduct of Annual General Meetings.

Although by the time of the 1894 English ban at least 18 Starr-Bowketts were established in the Australian colonies, and some suggestions were made at the time to follow the English lead, no steps were taken in this direction. As to why colonial Starr-Bowketts were allowed to continue when the general tendency was to follow the English example there is no definitive answer. An answer may lie in the fact that at the time of the English ban the building society movement in Australia was in a woeful state with societies collapsing weekly, whereas the Starr-Bowkett societies fared well during the Depression, with the decade seeing an increase in the number of societies formed and operating. The collapse of building societies during the Depression of the 1890s was to be to the advantage of Starr-Bowkett societies as the level of distrust evinced by the borrowing public towards the 'formal' financial sector, including building societies, drew those looking for finance, and in particular housing finance, to the one financial institution that seemed to emerge from the Depression relatively intact.

'A superior rate of increase'¹¹

To understand the dynamics behind the rapid growth of Starr-Bowkett societies in the period 1900–30 it is necessary to first understand the position of the societies at the turn of the century. Colonial Australia's first Starr-Bowkett started in 1868 with the subscribing of the Nos 1, 2 and 3 Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Societies. It is unknown who the promoter of this scheme was, and whether their action in establishing these societies was directed more by the entrepreneurial attitude of Starr or the philosophical stance of Bowkett. What is known is that by 1889 the Sydney Starr-Bowkett Society No. 7 lodged returns with the Registrar of Friendly Societies and Starr-Bowkett societies had been established in Bathurst, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Forbes, Mudgee and Orange.¹² By the turn of the century the Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society No. 9 and the Broken Hill Starr-Bowkett Society No. 15 had been established, and the geographic spread had extended to Cowra, Wellington and Willyama, with Broken Hill housing three different groups of Starr-Bowkett societies.¹³ As with the Sydney Starr-Bowkett it is unknown how or through whom knowledge of this means of finance spread to the regional towns noted above. Although this growth was aligned temporally and geographically with the growth of co-operative societies and trade unions, especially in the major railway centres, no evidence has been found to date to show any correlation between these growth patterns. A detailed examination of the various principals involved in each of these groupings would be expected to reveal a correlation but to date this has not been undertaken.

The geographic spread of the societies noted above is by no means definitive, as although Starr-Bowkett societies notionally came under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act of 1873 they were not compelled to register with, nor provide reports to, the Registrar of Friendly Societies until the Building Societies Act of 1901. What is evident from the Registrar's reports is the increasing interest in Starr-Bowkett societies within the Sydney metropolitan region after 1900, as shown in Table 1. In 1898, the Leichhardt, Petersham and Annandale Starr-Bowkett Society No. 1 was registered, which was the only Sydney-based society registered apart from those in Sydney Starr-Bowkett group. This does not imply that these were the only two societies operating in the Sydney region prior to 1900 as registration was not compulsory. However, the greater rate of registration in the regional towns compared with Sydney is surprising, especially as the registry did not have branch offices in country towns. If the rate of society formation in the Sydney area was substantially slower up to 1900 than in the regional areas, the answer may lie in the greater availability of alternative housing finance in Sydney region combined with a stronger co-operative spirit in the regions.

Table 1
Starr-Bowkett Societies: Registrations 1900–10

Year	No. of Societies	New Societies Registered
1900	12	Barrier Starr-Bowkett Society No. 2
1901	12	Leichhardt, Petersham and Annandale Starr-Bowkett Society No. 2
1902	17	Sydney Starr-Bowkett Permanent Benefit Building Society Manly Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 Parramatta Starr-Bowkett Building Society
1903	18	No. 3 Orange Starr-Bowkett Building Society Newcastle District Starr-Bowkett Society No. 1 No. 2 Wellington Starr-Bowkett Building Society
1904	17	Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society Leichhardt, Petersham and Annandale Starr-Bowkett Society No. 3 Burwood Starr-Bowkett Building Society
1905	22	Paddington, Woollahra and Waverley Starr-Bowkett Building Society South Coast Alternate Starr-Bowkett Building Society Ashfield District Starr-Bowkett Building Society St George Starr-Bowkett Ballot and Sale Society Balmain and Rozelle Starr-Bowkett Building Society Northern Suburbs Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 North Sydney Starr-Bowkett Building Society
1906	36	Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 Central Suburbs Starr-Bowkett Building Society 1st section Central Suburbs Starr-Bowkett Building Society 2nd section Auburn Starr-Bowkett Building Society Hornsby Shire Starr-Bowkett Building Society Lithgow Starr-Bowkett Building Society Lang Starr-Bowkett Building Society Newcastle Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2
1907	41	Tamworth Starr-Bowkett Building Society Manly Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 No. 1 Inverell Starr-Bowkett Building Society Central Starr-Bowkett Building Society Sturt Starr-Bowkett Building Society Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 3 Silver City Starr-Bowkett Building Society
1908	54	Balmain and Rozelle Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 South Broken Hill Starr-Bowkett Building Society Kurri Kurri Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 Stanmore and Petersham Starr-Bowkett Building Society Paddington, Woollahra and Waverley Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 Parramatta and Granville District Starr-Bowkett Building Society Bathurst Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 7 Glen Innes Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1
1909	61	Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 4 St George Starr-Bowkett Ballot and Sale Building Society No. 2 South Coast Alternate Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 Ryde Starr-Bowkett Building Society Coonamble Starr-Bowkett Building Society Mosman and Neutral Bay Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 Leichhardt, Petersham and Annandale Starr-Bowkett Society No. 4 Epping District Starr-Bowkett Building Society
1910	74	Paddington, Woollahra and Waverley Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 Tamworth Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 North Sydney Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 2 Maitland District Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 Newcastle District Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 3 Campsie District Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1 St George Starr-Bowkett Ballot and Sale Building Society No. 3 Rose Bay, Double Bay and Watson's Bay Starr-Bowkett Building Society Wagga Wagga Starr-Bowkett Building Society Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 5 Willoughby, Chatswood and Northern District Starr-Bowkett Building Society Sydney Permanent Starr-Bowkett Building Society Gunnedah Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 1

Sources: For the years 1900–02, Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1902, pp. 451–52; for 1902–04, Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1903–04, pp. 16–17; for 1905–10, Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1910, p. 42.

The building society movement, as distinct from the Starr-Bowkett movement, collapsed during the Depression of the 1890s and this collapse was particularly hard felt in the regional areas of the state where the majority of societies were located.¹⁴ Drought, falling export prices, increasing pastoral debt, the collapse of the speculative land boom and decreased Government borrowings for infrastructure projects, combined with the withdrawal of British finance, brought about a severe crisis across the financial sector. Although a range of factors can be advanced to explain the collapse of the building societies the most succinct explanation is that their failure was:

clearly traceable to a departure from their legitimate functions, and their adoption of a system of business which combined two methods of finance ... viz., borrowing at short call and selling on extended terms.¹⁵

The collapse of the building societies or more correctly the speculative 'Building and Investment Societies' that abounded in the 1880s left a substantial void in the financial market, which was ably filled by established and new Starr-Bowkett societies as economic conditions improved. Starr-Bowkett societies survived the financial implosion of the 1890s as their capacity to make loans was not predicated upon the amount of finance that they in turn could borrow. The closed nature of the societies was, and continues to be, a safeguard against the vagaries of the financial markets.

Table 1 presents those established Starr-Bowkett building societies providing returns to and new societies registering with the Registrar of Friendly Societies between 1900 and 1910. Two clear patterns in the growth of these societies emerge from this information. First, the rapid rate of growth in the number of societies, more than six-fold, and second, the increasing predominance of society formation in the metropolitan region with 21 of the 32 societies formed in 1904–10 being registered in Sydney and suburbs. By 1929 Starr-Bowkett societies had been established in Argyle, Bankstown, Campsie, Glen Innes, Goulburn, Hornsby, Lakemba and Belmore, Lithgow, Orange, Quirindi, Randwick, Wagga Wagga and Wills. Although this listing appears to show that growth was stronger in the regional areas from 1910 to 1929, it must be realised that over the same period suburban Starr-Bowkett groups such as Central Suburbs, Leichhardt-Petersham, Newtown-Enmore, Paddington, Woollahra and the St George group registered four, three, four, six, and five societies respectively.¹⁶

This superior rate of increase is even more evident if the decade is split into two periods 1900–04 and 1905–10. Within the Balance Sheets of the Starr-Bowkett societies, member subscriptions in 1900 totalled £72,604, and advances on mortgages £77,593; in 1904 these figures totalled £75,785 and £86,041 respectively. By 1907 these figures were £156,972 and £162,618 respectively and grew by an astounding 200 per cent to reach £324,452 in member subscriptions and £331,653 in advances on mortgages by 1910. In contrast, the number of permanent building societies increased from 13 in 1900 to only 19 in 1910, with advances on mortgages only increasing from £625,403 in 1900 to £775,058 in 1910.¹⁷ As shown in Table 2 this rate of growth in the number of Starr-Bowkett societies, member subscriptions and advances on mortgages continued up to 1914, stagnated during World War I then surged again in the post-war period.

Table 2
Starr-Bowkett Societies: Growth Rates 1911–29/30

Year	No. of Societies	Member Subscriptions £	Advances due on Mortgages £
1911	87	493,666	503,287
1912	94	590,975	608,414
1913	100	744,256	735,018
1914	108	855,272	879,319
1915	109	995,749	1,036,019
1916	109	1,076,112	1,127,296
1917	106	1,221,961	1,290,341
1921	128	1,599,564	1,686,931
1922	136	1,751,296	1,897,666
1923	139	1,824,566	1,958,023
1924/25	153	2,125,379	2,027,175
1925/26	154	2,294,421	2,185,125
1926/27	156	2,440,876	2,355,978
1927/28	148	2,496,272	2,428,385
1929/30	147	1,342,104	1,341,722

Sources: Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies 1918, New South Wales Parliamentary Papers (NSW PP), 1919, vol. 1, p. 20; Report of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1928, NSW PP, 1929-30, vol. 4, p. 18; Report of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1930, NSW PP, 1930-33, vol. 1, p. 19.

The collapse of building societies and a general loss of confidence in that model of finance provide one explanation for the growth in Starr-Bowkett societies. As economic conditions improved and levels of employment recovered, those on lower incomes began looking for sources of finance for either housing, establishment of a business, or general consumption. Most members of the working class were locked out of the formal financial sector due to the application of high deposit requirements, the high rates of interest charged and an aversion on the part of even the Government savings banks to look favourably on working-class applicants for loans. Working in combination with these factors was the rapidly increasing level of rents in inner-city and suburban Sydney, which were a result of increasing population pressures and a housing market that had stagnated in terms of expansion during the 1890s depression. Across New South Wales average rent levels increased by nearly 70 per cent between 1905 and 1914 with Sydney rents exhibiting a higher rate of annual increase. In Ashfield rents increased by 10 to 20 per cent in 1912–13, and in Manly and Newtown similar rates of increase were experienced.¹⁸ By 1910 rent consumed 25 per cent of a labourer's weekly income and in 1921 rents were on average 15 per cent higher than in 1914 with a similar rate of increase between 1921 and 1926 before rents steadied until the end of the decade.¹⁹

There were two clear results of these rates of increase in rents. One was the push for rent control with the eventual enactment of the Fair Rents Act in 1916. The second result was an increasing level of interest in, and establishment of, Starr-Bowkett societies. As shown in Table 1, society formation was highest in those suburbs of Sydney that experienced the greatest rate of population expansion and highest rate of rent increase. These suburbs included Newtown, with the Newtown-Enmore group establishing seven Starr-Bowkett societies by 1917; Balmain-Rozelle where four societies were established by 1920; Leichhardt-Petersham where six societies were formed by 1919; North Sydney, three societies by 1911; Paddington-Woollahra, six societies by 1918, and the St George group establishing five societies by 1918. This link between increasing rent levels and the growth in Starr-Bowkett societies was recognised by the NSW Statistician who wrote with regard to the excessive increases in rents that had been observed that:

The progress which has marked the operations of building societies during recent years, particularly those which favour the ballot and sale system of advances, indicates, that, to a large extent, the industrial classes are endeavouring to become freeholders.²⁰

Within their promotional material the societies used the economic constraints of rent and interest and the social advantage of co-operation to attract members. The Newtown-Enmore group in booklets similar to that shown in Figure 1 promoted the registration of new societies with statements such as 'Own your Own Home' and 'The Advantages of Co-operation'. Inside they highlighted the fact that the:

[s]ociety is a co-operative one, the members' subscriptions being lent free of interest to one another. The Directors have no power to borrow money, and therefore cannot speculate with the funds of the Society.²¹

The Paddington, Woollahra, and Waverley Starr-Bowkett group headlined their promotional material 'Rent! Interest! And how to avoid them' with the body of the flyer arguing that:

One of the most pressing matters of the present day affecting the great masses of the people ... is the payment of Rent and Interest. Its urgency is insistent, continuous and unavoidable, as far as the vast majority are concerned; ... The only system yet devised which eliminates RENT and INTEREST is the Starr-Bowkett System. Under the Co-operative Starr-Bowkett Building Society plan a limited number of people combine to achieve a common end to their mutual advantage—that of home or property ownership without paying interest, which is beyond their unaided individual reach.²²

A further factor directing the growth in Starr-Bowkett societies was the increasing interest in the co-operative model by the general population and the NSW state government's encouragement of co-operative formation. The growth in Starr-Bowkett numbers mirrored the formation of trade unions and co-operative societies yet, as mentioned earlier, there is no evidence to suggest any clear correlation or overlap between the observable patterns of growth. The growth in co-operative models of organisation was a reaction to the hardships experienced by many during the Depression of the 1890s, and a general interest in the co-operative model as a form of social and economic form of organisation. In addition the NSW state government tacitly encouraged this growth, especially after 1923, with the Co-operation, Community Settlement and Credit Act. This Act regulated, but more importantly encouraged, 'co-operative organization for social, recreative, athletic, literary, and other purposes'²³ along with economic co-operation. Such encouragement came in the form of an 'Information Officer' from within the Registrar's department who 'visited and delivered lectures in regard to the principles of co-operation and the formation and conduct of societies' at towns throughout NSW. In addition the Act allowed for the formation of an Advisory Council to advise the government on amendments to the Act, to investigate and trace growth in the co-operative movement and, most importantly for the future of the Starr-Bowkett movement, to give 'serious consideration to proposals for improving the methods and principles upon which terminating societies are conducted'.²⁴

Figure 1
Source: Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970, ML MSS 2400 K52390. Reproduced with permission of the State Library of NSW

This attempt to improve the conduct of terminating societies was directed at the long period that could expire between the time of the first and last appropriations. This could be from 13 to 18 years. Proposals were made to provide a government guarantee to enable terminating societies to borrow large sums of money early in their life for the purpose of increasing the rate at which loans could be made. Although the 1926 proposal along this line was not approved, encouragement was provided to terminating societies based on what became known as the 'Mudgee Model', over the Starr-Bowkett model under the Housing Improvement Act 1936 which provided for a Government guarantee on funds borrowed by registered co-operative building societies. Government encouragement and promotion of the Mudgee Model during the latter part of the 1920s, combined with the Depression of 1929, curbed the rate of growth of Starr-Bowkett societies in the 1930s. The provisions of the 1936 Act which directly encouraged the formation of societies along the Mudgee Model resulted in Starr-Bowkett societies going backwards in terms of their number of members and amount of advances made compared with their position at the beginning of the 1920s.

Before proceeding to consider who was accessing finance through the Starr-Bowkett model it is worthwhile considering the comparative positions of the various forms of Building Societies in terms of number and size of advances made against mortgages. The information contained in Table 3 clearly shows the predominant position of Starr-Bowkett societies over other terminating and permanent building societies in the provision of finance and also provides an indication of the average size of the advances made in 1925/26. The bulk of advances made by Starr-Bowkett societies were within the £251-£500 range indicating that the majority of members held between five and ten shares, as each share entitled a member to an appropriation of £50. For other terminating societies the bulk of advances were less than £250, but this was closely followed by the number of advances within the £251-£500 range. Permanent Building Societies also made the bulk of their advances within the £250 or less range. The average advance for Starr-Bowkett societies was £380, for other terminating societies £385 and permanent societies £267 with Starr-Bowkett societies making nearly 53 per cent of advances on mortgage made by Building Societies, with other terminating societies making less than eight per cent of all advances. Although Starr-Bowketts dominated in terms of the overall number and amount of advances in each range of advance up to £1,000 it was the Permanent Building Society sector that dominated in terms of amount of advances over £1,000. This is not all that surprising, as to acquire an appropriation of over £1,000 would entail a Starr-Bowkett member to hold more than 20 shares and the records of the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society show that such levels of share holdings were rare and at the subscription rate of 6d per week would mean payments of £1 5s 0d per week. Such a rate of subscription payments could be assumed to be beyond the financial resources of most Starr-Bowkett members, as the standard minimum wage in 1925 was £4 4s 0d per week.²⁵

Table 3
Building Societies: Advances on Mortgages 1925—26

	Total		£250 and under		£251-£500		£501-£750		£751-£1000		Over £1000
	No.	Amount £	No.	Amount £	No.	Amount £	No.	Amount £	No.	Amount £	No.	Amount £
Starr-Bowkett Building Societies	1,445	535,861	480	82,063	813	341,613	109	68,672	33	30,659	10	12,854
Other Terminating Building Societies	213	81,943	89	11,687	73	28,420	28	17,766	14	12,270	9	11,800
Permanent Building Societies	1,040	277,244	575	69,038	378	141,341	62	37,960	15	13,440	10	15,465
	2,698	895,048	1,144	162,788	1,264	511,374	199	124,398	62	56,369	29	40,119

Source: Report of the Registrar for Co-operative Societies, 1926, p. 14

'All may become members'²⁶

One of the great advantages of Starr-Bowkett societies was, and still is, that anyone can become a member and therefore be eligible for an appropriation. All sectors of society were accepted as members: 'men and women, married or single, and parents may take up shares for their children'.²⁷ The acceptance of women as members is a point deserving of emphasis as women, whether married or single, were excluded from obtaining finance in their own right through other financial institutions. This was not the case in Starr-Bowkett societies. The archives of the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society reveal a substantial number of women, married and single as members, with the No. 5 Society showing that women were nearly 40 per cent of total membership.²⁸ Just under a third of these women were single and the other information provided in the records, such as addresses and occupation, indicates that these single women were not young girls whose parents had purchased shares in their names. Not only were women able to be members but they were also members in their own right. That is, a married woman was registered under her own, not her husband's name, so Mrs Annie Stewart held shares as Mrs Annie Stewart not as Mrs George Stewart.

From the register of members for the No. 8 Society it is clear that the proportion of female members within the No. 5 Society was not an aberration. A similar proportion is evident in the later society. The majority of women in the No. 8 Society held ten shares, allowing them an appropriation of £500, although quite a number held either 12 or 16 shares which would give an appropriation of £600 or £800. A number also increased their share holding during the life of the society, in one case from four to ten shares and in another from two to five and finally ten shares. The recorded occupations of the women in this society included domestic duties, for both married and single women, typist, clerk, tailoress, hairdresser, kitchenhand, teacher, storekeeper and student. Although the names contained in this register show that both husbands and wives were members this was not the predominant situation, with only very few surnames being repeated.²⁹

Male society members exhibited a similar though broader pattern to female members with regard to occupational distribution and the level of share-holdings but tended to hold a higher average number of shares. Occupations included 'Gentleman', secretary, accountant, builder, brass moulder, engine driver, plasterer, traveller, electrical engineer, school teacher, company director, bill distributor, joiner, nurseryman, boilermaker, tinsmith, leather dresser, photographer, telephone mechanic and milk carter.³⁰ Although Bowkett developed his plan in order to allow the lowest paid workers to become freeholders, the occupations within the membership of the No. 8 Society indicates that amongst the male members it was the skilled and administrative classes who were accessing finance. This would not be a result of the level of subscriptions, 6d per week per share, as general labourers' wages over the period 1901–21 increased from £2 8s 0d to £5 per week and, as mentioned earlier, even the standard minimum wage of £4 5s 0d in 1930 would not hinder membership as ten shares would account for only 5s.³¹ In addition, if cost were a factor in preventing membership of a society it would not be expected to find women as members, as their wages were substantially lower than male wages and women predominated in the lower-wage occupations. It may be the case that the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 8 was atypical in terms of its membership. A lack of comparable membership registers for other societies within the Newtown-Enmore group or other Starr-Bowkett Building Societies prevents a more detailed analysis of the occupational structure of membership.

Although the level of subscriptions would apparently not deter someone on low wages being a member it is possible that once loan repayments are taken into account repayment requirements may have excluded many in the lower-wage occupations from being members. In the early 1920s the average cost of a weatherboard house and land was £550, and a loan of £500 (for ease of calculation) from a Starr-Bowkett society would involve payments of £1 6s 5d per week comprising subscriptions, loan repayments and working expenses. This does not seem like a large sum of money, but as the living wage in 1923 was £4 2s 0d per week repayments would be consuming nearly a quarter of man's weekly wage:

it would not be easy for him to pay this sum, in addition to rates, provision for maintenance and, if he is a city worker, the amount of fares consumed in travelling to and from the distant suburb in which his house would be located.³²

Given this situation it is not surprising that the membership of Starr-Bowkett societies in the period under review was not drawn from the lower-wage occupations.

One of the defining characteristics of most co-operative associations is an overarching or unifying characteristic amongst the co-operative's members. Occupation, skill and geographic location are the most common of these characteristics. However, the extant membership lists of Starr-Bowkett societies do not exhibit any of these features apart from, it would be expected, amongst the members of the Public Service Starr-Bowkett Building Societies Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who it could be assumed were all employees of the New South Wales Public Service. As noted above occupation does not appear to be a unifying theme amongst the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society members and nor is location. Members lived in the Newtown, Enmore and St Peters area, as would be expected, but were also found in such places as Strathfield, Katoomba, Kogarah, Manly, Lindfield, Randwick, Belmore, Ballina, Tumut, Brighton-le-Sands, Ryde, Burwood, Vaucluse, Paddington, Armidale, Auburn, Dee Why, Hurstville, Mt Druitt, Woy Woy, and Tamworth.

Even though Starr-Bowkett societies could make advances anywhere within New South Wales, such a wide distribution of members is surprising. In conjunction with this is the fact that a number of members moved around the state and maintained their membership during the life of the society. One single woman, a teacher who held 16 shares, started at Dulwich Hill then moved onto Glebe Point, Broken Hill, Warialda, Norfolk Island and finally Wallsend. Another single woman, who was employed at 'domestic duties' and held 10 shares, started in Darlinghurst, then went to Bondi, Manly, Tenterfield and finally Brookvale, where she settled after marriage. A fire-station employee started in Armidale and then settled in Woollahra, and a telephone mechanic who held 12 shares started at Rhodes then moved to Earlwood, Armidale, Gunnedah and finally Eastwood.³³

While occupational and geographic dispersal of members appears to disqualify Starr-Bowkett societies as co-operatives, if a unifying characteristic is taken as a qualification, there is little that can be stated about this information. This is more marked when it is remembered that many of the suburbs listed (for example Paddington, Burwood, Auburn, Hurstville and Tamworth) also boasted well-established Starr-Bowkett societies in 1920 when the No. 8 Society was formed. As noted above the lack of comparable records makes further analysis difficult; however, it would be expected that the membership of country-based societies would have exhibited a greater degree of geographic concentration. A final point worth noting is that despite the geographic dispersal of its members the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society maintained a personal relationship with their members so that subscription payments and advance repayments were suspended or renegotiated during 'sickness or whilst out of employment ... without fines or other loss to Members'.³⁴ Such adaptability on the part of Starr-Bowkett societies has had the result that in over 100 years of operation the Newtown-Enmore group has never had occasion to call in a mortgage.³⁵

Savings and Consumption

As discussed earlier, Dr T.E. Bowkett, in outlining his plan for what would become Starr-Bowkett societies, envisaged this as a way that those lacking capital or receiving only a low income could acquire property. His other motivation was to promote thrift and Starr-Bowkett societies were, and continue today to be, a form of systematic savings. Despite the lack of interest payable on these savings, the registrar of co-operatives in 1924 argued that 'all members of Starr-Bowkett societies have the benefit of an organised means of saving which ultimately provides them with a loan on very favourable terms under conditions which they could not obtain elsewhere'.³⁶ This systematic savings plan allowed a Miss F.D., register number 92, who held initially five shares in the No. 5 Society to accumulate £11 12s 6d over the five years 1910–15, having paid 2s 6d per week. In 1917 Miss D., who had savings of £26 15s 0d and increased her share holding to ten, began paying 5s per week and by January 1920 had savings of £52 15s 0d. Another single woman, Miss M. McC., register number 402, started with four shares, making a weekly subscription of 2s, had accrued £12 18s 0d in savings by 1916 and £34 by 1920 when she increased her shares to ten.³⁷ Although neither of these women had received an appropriation by the end of the eighth year of the No. 5 Society, they had accrued a substantial level of savings and had made themselves eligible for an interest-free advance of £500 in the future.

Breaks within the extant ledgers and registers makes it impossible to know when these two, and other, members of the No. 5 Society received their advance, what they used as security, nor what they did with the money once their number came up in the ballot. Various pieces of correspondence relating to this and other societies do, however, provide a chance to reconstruct what the advances were used for, what security was offered against the advance and how membership of Starr-Bowkett Building Societies was used to access other short-term finance.

Mrs B. of Dulwich Hill, register number 120 in the No. 5 Society, held two shares (in her own name) and won an appropriation of 100 in December 1910. In a letter to the society Mr B. explains that the security offered for the advance was:

The property we live in, is in my wife's name, freehold, Torrens Title, for which we agreed to pay £695, of which £500 is on mortgage at 5%. At present £490 is owing. This £100, we proposed to use to decrease this amount and add £90 to it, leaving £300 owing until December next, when we shall be able to clear the property.³⁸

This system of using appropriations as detailed by Mr B. whereby property would be purchased through the more formal financial institutions was, according to similar letters and personal recollections, a common practice. Letters relating to the Nos. 7 and 8 Societies show the following offered as security: a five-room house in Leichhardt valued at £730 (for an appropriation of £500); land in Bexley on which it was intended to build a cottage (for an appropriation of £600); a cottage at Undercliffe valued at £800 (for an appropriation of £500); a pair of brick cottages in Mosman valued at £1,300 (for an appropriation of £1,000); and four brick cottages in Croydon valued at £1,100 (for an appropriation of £350).³⁹ These securities show that advances must have been used for a variety of purposes apart from home or land purchase or construction, but without a Register of Securities a detailed description or analysis of the consumption patterns of Starr-Bowkett Building Society members is not possible.⁴⁰

What can be stated about the consumption patterns of members is that membership, the amount of shares held and level of subscriptions paid were used as security by members to access short-term finance. One very surprising collection of documents contained within the Newtown-Enmore archive is a sizable series of 'Share Certificates' issued by the Society in the form below:

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that X is the holder of SIXTEEN SHARES in this Society numbered respectively 5426/41, inclusive, under registered number 348, the amount paid to the credit of such shares being £70–3-0, same being subject to a deduction of £14 for working expenses as per the Society's Rules.⁴¹

This Share Certificate was produced in October 1926 and held by the National Bank of Australasia for an advance of £60 to a businessman of Marrickville and was cancelled in May 1932. Under the Society's rules the member for whom a share certificate was produced 'cannot withdraw or transfer the shares until the share certificate has been returned for cancellation'. Most Share Certificates were produced for advances of small amounts even though members had substantially more credit on their shares. Interestingly, two Share Certificates for advances of £25 (member had £194 to credit of shares) and £60 (member had £114 to credit of shares) were issued to and held by the Society's solicitor, who requested the certificates for advances they had made to these members.⁴²

The issuing of such share certificates permitted members of Starr-Bowkett Building Societies to extend their income in order to cover periodic or unexpected expenditures without the added cost of interest payments. The number of share certificates contained within the Newtown-Enmore archive indicates that this was a common practice, which adds an unexpected element to the role of Starr-Bowkett societies in the provision of finance.

Conclusion

Although still in existence and continuing to operate along principles established over 160 years ago Starr-Bowkett societies are today a relatively unknown and forgotten part of Australia's financial system, which belies their previous importance in the provision of finance. During the first three decades of the twentieth century Starr-Bowkett societies dominated the building society sector in terms of the number of and spread of societies and the number and amount of advances made against mortgages. This dominance can also be extended across most of the financial sector of the time, access to which, for the majority of the population, was blocked by high interest rates and deposit requirements. A lack of access to the more formal financial market combined with rapidly increasing rents, a lack of confidence in Building and Investment societies after the depression of the 1890s, and increasing interest in the co-operative model, produced a demand for home finance that Starr-Bowketts were well suited and well placed to fill.

Through their co-operative, non-profit, interest-free system of providing finance for housing or other purposes to all sectors of society, encouragement of thrift and ability and willingness to adjust when necessary to members' financial situation, Starr-Bowkett societies extended the consumption possibilities of, and provided economic independence to, a broad spectrum of society, although, as this article has shown, it was not necessarily to that sector of society or for the reasons that were foremost in Bowkett's initial plan. The available membership lists contain a surprising number of women, both married and single, who were definitely not included in Bowkett's plan. Also in contradiction to Bowkett's intentions is the paucity of the lower-wage occupations amongst the membership lists. This may be a result of the high proportion of the living wage that would be consumed by repayments during the period under review. Further research on the relationship between real wages and the cost of housing for this period and a study of the membership lists of societies other than the Newtown-Enmore branch, and for the post-war period when the Starr-Bowkett movement experienced a renaissance, may clarify this apparent contradiction between Bowkett's intent and the reality.

Maxine Darnell lectures in economics and economic history at the School of Economics, University of New England. Her research interests include the employment of indentured labourers in the nineteenth century Australian pastoral industry, and co-operative finance schemes, notably Starr-Bowkett societies and the manner in which the existence and spread of such societies influenced the level of home ownership in early twentieth century Australia.
<mdarnell@une.edu.au>

Endnotes

^* This paper has been peer-reviewed for Labour History by two anonymous referees and I would like to thank the referees for their constructive and supportive comments.

^1. Terry Cass, 'Cheaper than Rent: Aspects of the Growth of Owner-Occupation in Sydney 1911–66', in Max Kelly (ed.), City of Suburbs, New South Wales University Press, Sydney, 1987, p. 78.

^2. T.E. Bowkett, The Bane and the Antidote: or Bad and Good Associations, W. Strange, London, 1850, p. 301.

^3. M.R. Hill, Housing Finance in Australia, 1945–56, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 1959. E. Balnave, Review of the Operations and Future of Starr-Bowkett Type Building Societies, NSW Department of Co-operative Societies, 1981.

^4. Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970, State Library of New South Wales, Mitchell Library, MS2400 (hereafter ML MSS2400).

^5. Starr Bowkett Statewide Co-operative Society Information Leaflet and Application Form, 2005.

^6. T.E. Bowkett, Freehold Property for Mechanics: A Series of lectures delivered by T.E. Bowkett at the Poplar Literary Institute in June and July 1843; containing Instructions for the Formation of Societies, by means of which every mechanic in the country, receiving wages, however low in amount, may become a freeholder, John Cleave, London, 1843; T.E. Bowkett, Alchemy, or the Art of Converting the Baser metals into Gold, familiarly Explained, containing among Much Important Information, A Highly Valuable Receipt, for the Manufacture of an Accumulating Fund, Investment, provident, Building, Equitable Association, W. Strange, London, 1844; Bowkett, The Bane and the Antidote.

^7. Bowkett, The Bane and the Antidote, p. 239.

^8. Personal communication with Mr Robert Scrymgour, Newcastle Permanent Building Society.

^9. Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970, ML MSS2400 Box K52358.

^10. Report of the Registrar of Co-operatives 1924, New South Wales Parliamentary Papers (hereafter NSW PP), 1924, p. 16.

^11. Trade Unions, Building Societies and Co-operative Societies, Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1903–04, NSW PP, 1905, Second Session, vol. 3, p. 7.

^12. N.G. Butlin, Investment in Australian Economic Development, 1861–1900, Department of Economic History, Australian National University, Canberra, 1972, pp. 250–53.

^13. Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies 1902, NSW PP, 1904, Second Session, vol. 3, p. 15.

^14. Butlin, Investment in Australian Economic Development, p. 253.

^15. Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies 1903–04, p. 7.

^16. Report of the Registrar of Co-operatives, 1930, NSW PP, 1930–33, vol. 1, pp. 18–19.

^17. Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1902, pp. 449 and 451; Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1910, NSW PP, 1911–12, vol. 4, pp. 26–7.

^18. Cass, 'Cheaper than Rent', p. 79.

^19. Official Year Book of NSW, 1909–10, p. 576; 1921, p. 530; 1930–31, p. 566 respectively.

^20. Official Year Book of NSW, 1909–10, p. 576.

^21. Prospectus, Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Society No. 5, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970, ML MSS 2400, K52390.

^22. Paddington, Woollahra and Waverley Co-operative Starr-Bowkett Building Societies Limited flyer circa 1923, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970, ML MSS2400, K52390.

^23. Report of the Registrar of Co-operatives 1926, NSW PP, 1927, vol. 2, p. 2.

^24. Ibid., pp. 3–4.

^25. Official Year Book of NSW, 1930–31, p. 612.

^26. Prospectus, Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 5.

^27. Ibid.

^28. Ledger re Weekly Subscriptions, No. 5 Society, 1916–18, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970. ML MSS 2400, YV1186.

^29. Register of Members 1921, No. 8 Society, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970. ML MSS 2400, K52352.

^30. Ibid.

^31. Official Year Book of NSW, 1921, p. 598; 1930–31, p. 612.

^32. Report of the Registrar of Co-operatives 1924, NSW PP, 1924, p. 24.

^33. Register of Members 1921, No. 8 Society, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd, 1911–1970. ML MSS 2400, K52352.

^34. Prospectus, Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Society No. 5.

^35. Personal communication with Mrs Joan Glennie, 24 January 2005.

^36. Cited by Hill, Housing Finance in Australia, p. 24.

^37. Ledger of Weekly Subscriptions, 1916–20, No. 5 Society, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970. ML MSS 2400, YV1186.

^38. Letter to Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Society, 3 January 1911, from Mr A. B., Dulwich Hill, Newtown; and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970 ML MSS 2400, K52382.

^39. Correspondence, various societies, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–70. ML MSS 2400, K52370.

^40. A Security Register for the Newtown, Marrickville and General Co-operative Building Society No. 1, which operated from the Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett offices does exist but has not been used here as evidence of consumption patterns as the Co-operative Building Societies operated under a different regime, as discussed earlier.

^41. Share Certificate dated 5 October 1926, Newtown and Enmore Starr-Bowkett Building Co-operative Society Ltd. 1911–1970, ML MSS 2400, K52370.

^42. Ibid.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.