By: Maxine Darnell (University of New England 1)
Deregulation of Australia’s financial system has dramatically changed the face of our financial system. One of the most notable impacts is that long established forms of co-operative finance and self-help, Building and Friendly Societies and Credit Unions, have declined in number and membership. However, rationalisation by the large banks in regional centres combined with concerns about home affordability has led to co-operative finance schemes being considered anew. This paper provides an insight into one of the oldest, most enduring and least known of co-operative finance schemes, Starr-Bowkett societies, focussing on the genesis of and major personalities behind the schemes.
In 1843 Dr Thomas Edward Bowkett presented at the Poplar Literary Institution a series of lectures outlining his plan whereby ‘every mechanic in the country … may become a freeholder’.2 These lectures were published and the detailed plans delineated by Bowkett in this and future publications were to produce a scheme capable of providing housing finance to many low-income earners and others less favoured by traditional finance institutions. The scheme, as detailed by Bowkett, has over time been adjusted to make it more attractive to subscribers and less open to claims of gambling. Although Starr-Bowkett is the most popular and long-lasting form, other names under which Bowkett’s plans have operated are: Ninepence-Halfpenny; Poplar Freehold Provident; Poplar; Wenlock-Bowkett; Model; Self-Help; Richmond; Perfect Thrift; Popular; Economic; and Mutual.3 Claims that the schemes are merely gambling have been used to foretell the demise of the Bowkett scheme numerous times over the past 160 years,4 yet schemes designed along the lines delineated by Bowkett continue to provide interest-free finance and continue to have a future. The Starr-Bowkett Statewide Co-operative Society in Newtown celebrated their centenary last year and Bowkett’s principles comprise the basis for Rotating Savings and Credit Schemes (ROSCAs)5 which are today a substantial part of the microfinance network, providing credit throughout the developing world.
Starr-Bowkett societies are, in essence a form of terminating building society but differ from building societies and co-operative housing associations in that Starr-Bowketts do not borrow money to fund loans and do not charge or pay interest. All monies subscribed to the society are the only monies available for loan, and it is this distinctive feature that gives Starr-Bowketts the appellation of the most pure form of co-operative finance. This purity of form, combined with the longevity of the societies, an increasing interest in co-operative finance as an alternative where the formal financial sector is lacking, and the lack of any systematic study of the societies, make Starr-Bowkett societies a valuable field of study. As the co-operative sector has suffered an extreme decline with the on-going deregulation of the Australian financial sector, a detailed study of Starr-Bowkett schemes is not only overdue but can also contribute to discussions on the sustainability and value of co-operative finance. This paper is the first part of a larger study into the role and importance of Starr-Bowketts in providing home ownership during the twentieth century. The paper begins with a brief history and outline of the scheme as originally proposed by Bowkett, the changes wrought in his initial plan, and offers a brief history of Starr-Bowkett societies in New South Wales (NSW), concluding with the intended direction of future research.
Thomas Edward Bowkett
Bowkett was born in Bermondsey around 1805 and, after training as a doctor established a surgery in Folkstone Terrace, East India Dock Road, London.6 It was his work amongst the working class in the East End of London that shaped the form of his co-operative finance plan. In the few works that mention Bowkett, he is described as a ‘man held in honour…somewhat of a philanthropist’,7 a man of radical opinions,8 a ‘London Liberal’,9 and that his schemes had a ‘distinct radical pedigree’.10 Bowkett was involved in a range of radical and working-class movements of the time and through this involvement was associated with Richard Cobden, John Bright and Bronterre O’Brien amongst others in the Chartist Movement.
Bowkett was also a vocal supporter of trade unions, involved in the Association for the Repeal of Taxes on Knowledge, a member of the Metropolitan Parliamentary Reform Association, a demonstrator against the further enclosure of Epping Forest and a promoter of co-operative stores.11
Yet, despite such associations and involvement there is nothing in Bowkett’s publications to indicate any direct philosophical leanings. He does not refer to writers such as Robert Owen, David Ricardo or Thomas Hodgskin, all writers whose writings he would have been acquainted with given his various concerns noted above; nor does he mention the Chartist Movement or the Chartist Land Company. In devising his scheme Bowkett appears to have been driven by more practical than philosophical considerations. He argued that, after ‘twenty years of medical practice, and a longer period still of anxious enquiry into the causes of the degraded condition of the working man of England’,12 the only means by which ‘every mechanic may work out his own emancipation; how he may obtain power which will enable him beneficially to influence the legislature of this country’,13 was by achieving economic power which in turn could only be achieved by ‘every mechanic’ becoming a freeholder. It was this belief that led to Bowkett to devise his scheme for a low subscription, interest-free ‘building society that could be of real utility to working men’.14
Poplar Freehold Provident Societies
At a series of lectures during June and July of 1843 at the Poplar Literary Institute, and then at the City of London Scientific and Political Institution on Sunday 13 August 1843 Bowkett lectured on ‘The best means of obtaining Freehold Property, and emancipating ourselves from the tyranny of Landlords’.15 During the August lecture Bowkett stated that one Society along his lines was already operating at Poplar and that another was being formed. This latter lecture led to an invitation for Bowkett to attend the same institution the following Sunday where he:
will in a short address, challenge any visitant to the above Institute on the occasion, to disprove his plan of making Freeholder’s, for the purpose of emancipating the working class from slavery. Already Messrs. Cameron, Cowen and Lewis, have entered the field as disputants.16
Messrs Spur, Benbow, Preston and Bolwell (?) joined the above named disputants on the Sunday in question, to whose oppositions Bowkett ‘made an able reply’, was given a unanimous vote of thanks and would have been pleased with his evening’s efforts, as the night concluded with several persons enrolling themselves as shareholders. The following Sunday, 3 September, Bowkett presented his lecture again, this time to the Chartists of South London at the Hall of Science, Blackfriar’s Road.17
Bowkett’s scheme was part of the self-help, co-operative and thrift movements that characterised Victorian England, as evidenced in the growth of Friendly Societies, trade unions, co-operative shops and ‘Mechanics Institutes’. But Bowkett’s scheme was also a reflection of the movement for universal suffrage epitomised by the Chartist Movement and a reaction to the fact that existing institutions did not cater for a great part of the working population. Most of these working-class movements only catered for the skilled artisan and the better-paid workers especially in terms of the level of subscriptions required. This period also witnessed rapid growth in the number of Building, Friendly and Loan societies, and the rapid formation of these societies was a result of a number of factors. Increasing population pressures especially in the urban areas, decreasing prices which increased the value of money increases in wages especially during the second quarter of the nineteenth century,18 rising rents and political agitation for universal suffrage, all combined to create a demand for housing finance that was not being met by traditional financial institutions. Although a vocal supporter of schemes dedicated to promoting thrift and independence amongst the working class and an organiser of a co-operatives out of his surgery,19 Bowkett argued that existing societies comprised ‘much of good … and more or less of evil’.20 After presenting what he saw as the good and evil of existing societies in his 1843 publication, and in 1844 providing a comparison of the advantages of his society over an ‘Immaculate Accumulating Fund Society’,21 Bowkett’s 1850 publication The Bane and the Antidote contains an extremely detailed discussion of the good and evil that he saw in other societies, a discussion that has been subsequently described as, ‘the best statement of building society problems’ apart from the work of Arthur Scratchely.22 Bowkett argued against these other societies on the basis of the lack of control that could be exercised by members of these societies over their management;23 that ‘Most of these Societies are set on foot by lawyers and artful money-lenders. Trickery and deception are therefore matters of course to them’;24 and the fact that the rates of interest charged25 and level of subscriptions required placed most of the existing societies and therefore the benefits of membership outside of the reach of the majority of the working class. Bowkett detailed six principles that would guide the society outlined in his plan and obviate the worst facets of existing societies. These principles were:
1st Obtaining the fullest advantage of combination
2nd Lending money without interest,
3rd Having no fines, and no forfeitures.
4th Exclusion of all offices of emolument.
5th Giving the poorest members the greatest advantages.
6th Returning to any member the whole of his subscriptions whenever he chooses to withdraw from the Society.26
The distinctive features of Bowkett’s scheme, which had their first manifestation as ‘Poplar Freehold Provident Societies’, was 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. In his scheme the society would comprise 100 members, each of whom would subscribe 9½d per week, or £2 1s 2d a year, providing the society with £205 16s 8d at the end of the first year. Once expenses were paid this made £200 available for the first purchase of freehold land with which monies the society could purchase land and organise the building of a house or purchase a completed house. All subscribers would then go into a ballot to determine the subscriber who would gain the first loan. The successful subscriber, once he had taken his loan would then begin paying £20 rent per year for ten years, as well as continuing to pay their 9½d per week subscription (although Bowkett did state that a mortgage to the society may be preferable to a lease).27 The next ‘drawing of lots’ would then occur earlier than 12 months later as the continued payment of subscriptions plus the £20 per annum repayments from the first loan increased the amount available to the society for lending. By the fifth year, two loans each year were able to be balloted for; three per year after 11 years of operation; and four per year after 15 years. At the end of the society, each subscriber would possess ‘freehold property which cost £200, and receive back his £62 in money’.28 Bowkett argued that he had chosen 9½d per week as it was an amount that could be afforded by the greatest number of working people and that an amount twice (1s 7d per week) or three times (3s 2d a week) although allowing the society to end in half or two-thirds of the time, was at £8 or £4 per annum ‘too much for a working man to have to pay for many years, in addition to maintaining a family and paying rent’.29 The amount of £200 for a freehold property was based by Bowkett on the sum required to purchase a ‘house in the neighbourhood of London, of such a kind as working men in general would desire to possess’.30
Bowkett’s original scheme closely followed that of the early building societies. In their original form building societies actually built the houses for their members with the order of home acquisition being determined by ballot and the houses remaining the property of the society.31 Disagreements over the size and price of houses in differing localities soon pushed the building societies away from building houses themselves and into becoming financial institutions which borrowed money, charged interest and also passed the expenses of operation onto members – all facets with which Bowkett disagreed:
We have no appointed solicitors, no surveyors, forming part of the association, and receiving their perquisites in the shape of fees, no expensive office rents to pay, not one single official in the society, or connected with the society, to derive profit …32
As was the case with building societies at the time, Bowkett societies were terminating, with the society ceasing to exist once all subscribers had obtained a house and repayments were completed, which Bowkett estimated initially would be at the end of 31 years, and the subscriptions paid (£62 by each subscriber) were returned to the subscribers. One area of controversy that Bowkett societies had difficulty in avoiding was the manner in which loans were allocated. The drawing of lots, or the balloting for loans amongst subscribers, was decried by many as constituting a lottery. This criticism was to necessitate a change in the wording of the rules from ‘drawing lots’ to ‘making an appropriation’.33 Bowkett was quite clear in distancing societies developed along his principles from building societies and other societies using the drawing of lots to determine the order in which loans were distributed:
It has always appeared to us a degradation to call our Societies, Building Societies. It is getting into bad company. Building societies have been so long known associated with deception and fraud, and also when formed and conducted by sincere and intelligent men, so constantly found to disappoint the expectations of the members, that to be identified with them is no recommendation. Considered however merely as Building Societies, ours have much less of that inequality of gain which causes the condition of one set of members to be improved at the expense of others, than all the schemes that have been devised since ours began.34
Under Bowkett’s scheme, the drawing of lots or appropriations for the £200 did not affect other subscribers to the society and therefore did not constitute a lottery. To Bowkett this distinction clearly differentiated his societies from those where the order of appropriation was determined by the order in which members joined the society, first-in-first-served, and where each member could be awarded as much money as he chose, despite the value of the shares in the society and whether or not other subscribers had received a loan.35 A major criticism of Bowkett’s scheme was the length of time that it might take some subscribers to draw a loan, which was found to force some members to leave the society or to ‘buy’ an appropriation from a successful member. Such a situation Bowkett saw as advantageous to both the society and its members, as ‘a member who would not have been punctual in making his repayments, will have been exchanged for one who will give the society no trouble’.36 Bowkett did not attempt to counter the criticism on the time taken for the conclusion of his society as he believed that the only way that the term of the society could be shortened was by increasing the level of subscriptions. He was not ready to countenance any shortening of the society as noted earlier, as any increase in subscriptions would alienate a fair proportion of the working class that he wished to assist with his scheme. A major advantage of Bowkett societies, an advantage that holds today, is that due to the relatively small size and localised nature of each society, repayments are able to be, and are, adjusted to account for changes in a member’s financial situation.37
By 1850 the eighth ‘Poplar Freehold Provident Society’ was accepting subscribers and Bowkett was also able to point to ‘not fewer than from one, to two hundred’ societies established on the same principles as the Poplar.38 The radical tradition of Bowkett and the acceptance of his scheme amongst the radical community is evidenced by the fact that the scheme was widely reported and advertised in the noted radical papers, Reasoner, Utilitarian Record, Northern Star, New Moral World and the English Charter Circular.39 In addition, Henry Hetherington, noted Chartist and owner of the London Dispatch and the Oddfellow, produced a modified version of Bowkett’s scheme which was adopted by the Socialist John Street Institution.40 It is not surprising that Hetherington supported Bowkett’s scheme as he, Hetherington, was a disciple of Robert Owen, yet believed that Owen’s scheme could not be carried into practice until the working class was enfranchised41 and Bowkett’s scheme could achieve this aim by providing the means with which the working class could become freeholders.
The intervention of Richard Benjamin Starr
Although the early Poplar Societies had a degree of success it was not until R.B. Starr (1813-92) altered Bowkett’s original scheme and became a whole-hearted promoter of what came to be known as Starr-Bowkett Building Societies that the societies achieved a degree of success and dispersion across England. Starr, given the list of his previous employments, ‘a hatter, a coffee house keeper, an auctioneer, a coal merchant and an omnibus proprietor’,42 may be described as something of a commercial adventurer. He was not drawn to Bowkett, whom he first met in 1855, and his scheme by any philosophical or ideological yearnings, but by a chance to make money. Starr altered Bowkett’s scheme so that the life of the societies was shortened, the subscription was raised to £10 per year and conditions were made more equal between members by reducing the proportion of subscriptions going into management fees for those members getting late appropriations and increasing the share of any surplus at the termination of the society going to this same group. By obtaining a copyright on the amended rules and the various forms associated with a Starr-Bowkett society, Starr was to find a very profitable source of employment. His profits arose from: charging £5 for addressing any meeting on the manner in which to form a Starr-Bowkett society; charging a fee of £25 for the appointment of a local solicitor as Secretary; £3 for the appointment of a surveyor; owning the printing and stationery company that produced and distributed the rule books and forms; charging a commission of £3 or 12.5 per cent, whichever was the largest, for the supply of the rule books and forms; and then in1881 founding the Starr-Bowkett and General Insurance Company from which all new societies had to insure their properties. Further alterations to Bowkett’s initial plan, but more especially the increasing commercialisation of the Starr-Bowkett societies, was to cause Bowkett to back away from the schemes promoted by Starr43 and to also bring Starr-Bowkett societies severe criticism. Starr’s alterations were to lead to a situation where ‘increasingly, gamblers rather than prospective home owners appear to have played a larger part in the balloting’.44 Some societies began to borrow money to be lent back at interest in the open market and, as societies were allowed to buy back appropriations, it was possible for a society to never advance any money but to become ‘purely gambling institutions’,45 an appellation which Bowkett had fought against so strenuously.
The first Starr-Bowkett Society was formed in London in 1862 and by 1874 over 150 societies had been formed, 200 by 1876 and over 700 by 1885.46 Table 1 presents the number of Starr-Bowkett societies and societies based on Bowkett’s principles but operating under different names, formed in England up to 1891 from either 1874 or their date of establishment.47 The growth in numbers, and dissemination of Starr-Bowkett societies displays a strong correlation with urban growth trends in England in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The first societies were in the major urban centre of London, then in the smaller towns around London, then moved from there to other large regional centres and then began to diffuse through the smaller towns surrounding these centres.48
Table 1. Starr-Bowkett and Bowkett-style societies, England 1874-91
| Name of Society | Date of First Society 49 | Number Formed |
| Starr-Bowkett Societies | 1862 | 799 |
| Model | 1882 | 267 |
| Self-Help | 1882 | 53 |
| Richmond | 1884 | 87 |
| Mutual | – | 154 |
| Perfect Thrift | 1888 | 137 |
| Economic | – | 89 |
| Popular | 1889 | 50 |
| TOTAL | 1583 |
The passing of the Building Societies Act in 1894 which made balloting illegal checked the growth and spread of Starr-Bowkett societies in England, with later societies evading this stipulation by a further amendment of Starr’s rules.50 Although Starr can be criticised for taking Bowkett’s scheme away from its first principles, he must be recognised for the role that he played in advertising and disseminating the ideas behind and advantages of Starr-Bowkett societies. The number and spread of Starr-Bowkett societies throughout England by the end of the nineteenth century can be considered as evidence that through the intervention of Starr, Bowkett was able to achieve in part his aim of providing the means by which every mechanic could become a freeholder, and therefore many workers were able to achieve this end whereas without such societies they may never have been able to achieve this goal.
Transportation to the colony
The concept of Starr-Bowkett societies was quick to be adopted in the Australian colonies with NSW gaining its first in 1868 with the subscribing of the Nos 1, 2 and 3 Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Societies. By 1869 there was reputedly a total of 45,000 Starr-Bowkett members in NSW,51 which is a remarkable rate of membership take-up. Table 2 presents a list of some of the Starr-Bowketts formed up to 1904. It must be borne in mind that this list is by no means definitive as many Societies especially those located in regional towns did not register nor provide returns to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Starr-Bowkett societies arrived in the colony at an economic stage similar to that evident when Bowkett first lectured on his scheme. Population pressures were increasing in the urban centres creating a severe housing shortage, rents were high, incomes rising, rates of personal savings were high from gold-mining, and existing financial institutions were either unable or unwilling to service the growth in demand for home building.52 Also, in line with the English experience, after first gaining acceptance in the major urban centres Starr-Bowketts moved out into firstly, the larger regional towns, such as Dubbo and Bathurst, and then into the surrounding smaller towns.
Table 2. Starr-Bowkett societies, NSW 1868-190453
| Year | Name of Society |
| 1868 | Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society Nos. 1, 2 and 3 |
| 1870 | Starr-Bowkett Benefit and Building Society, Dubbo |
| Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society, Bathurst | |
| 1873 | Dubbo Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society |
| 1874 | City of Bathurst No. 2 Starr- Bowkett Society |
| 1877 | Sydney Starr-Bowkett Building Society No. 4 |
| 1880 | Sydney Starr-Bowkett No. 5 |
| Bathurst No. 3 Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society | |
| Mudgee Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society | |
| 1884 | Orange Starr-Bowkett and Benefit Society |
| 1885 | Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society No. 6 |
| 1887 | No. 4 Bathurst Starr-Bowkett Society |
| 1889 | Sydney Starr-Bowkett, No. 7 |
| 1891 | Mudgee Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society No. 2 |
| 1893 | No. 8 Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society |
| Forbes Starr-Bowkett No. 1 | |
| 1894 | No. 5 Bathurst Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society |
| 1895 | No. 1 Cowra Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society |
| Orange Starr-Bowkett Society, No. 2 | |
| 1896 | Wellington Starr-Bowkett Building Society |
| No. 9 Sydney Starr-Bowkett Benefit Building Society | |
| 1898 | Broken Hill Starr-Bowkett Society No. 15 |
| Leichhardt, Petersham and Annandale Starr-Bowkett Society No. 1 | |
| 1899 | Silver City Starr-Bowkett Society |
| 1900 | Barrier Starr-Bowkett Society, No. 2 |
| 1903 | No. 1 Starr-Bowkett Newcastle54 |
| 1904 | Newtown and Enmore No. 1 Starr-Bowkett Society |
There is not the space in this paper to detail the growth, decline and distribution of Starr-Bowkett societies throughout Australia54 in the twentieth century, nor the space to examine carefully the factors that directed the pattern of growth. Table 3 provides an idea of the growth, decline, resurgence and then rapid decline in Starr-Bowkett societies in NSW during the twentieth century and it would be expected that this pattern was followed in the other states.
Table 3: Number of Starr-Bowkett Societies, NSW 1906-8456
| Year | No. of Societies | No. of members | Assets |
| 1906 | 22 | n.a | £124,017 |
| 1910 | 71 | n.a | £464,233 |
| 1915 | 109 | n.a | £1,127,393 |
| 1920 | 133 | n.a | £1,813,659 |
| 1925 | 156 | n.a | £2,798,808 |
| 1930 | 134 | n.a | £2,799,333 |
| 1935 | 135 | n.a | £2,022,867 |
| 1940 | 76 | 17,877 | £1,685,381 |
| 1945 | 71 | 26,449 | £1,614,288 |
| 1950 | 80 | 31,070 | £3,21,965 |
| 1955 | 75 | 27,726 | £5,216,000 |
| 1961 | 96 | 41,796 | £8,342,000 |
| 1964 | 98 | 41,074 | $17,778,000 |
| 1970 | 83 | 31,337 | $21,295,000 |
| 1975 | 62 | 22,888 | $27,677,000 |
| 1982 | 45 | 16,000 | $23,345,49857 |
| 1984 | 38 | 14,464 | $22,824,73958 |
The height of Starr-Bowkett membership was in the early decades of the twentieth century with a resurgence occurring with the post-war economic boom. During both periods Starr-Bowketts filled the void left by formal financial institutions. In 1985 the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Societies could boast that they had issued 75,815 shares, giving a lending power of $7.5 million, with $1,060,000 in ballots having taken place in the previous year, and advanced loans totalled $912,400 across five societies.59 But by 1997-98 only 29 societies60 remained operating in NSW. One interesting feature of the data in Table 3 is that it shows that Starr-Bowketts experienced a decline in number in NSW prior to the deregulation of the financial sector. Why Starr-Bowketts began their decline so early can only, at this stage of research, be compared with the concurrent growth of other co-operative finance schemes. Starr-Bowketts declined in number after 1965, whilst Building Societies and Credit Unions increased rapidly in terms of numbers and proportion of total financial assets and then declined just as rapidly61 as deregulation brought increasing competition into the housing finance market which was the mainstay of the co-operative finance sector. Further reforms of the sector arising from the Financial System Inquiry of 1997 brought Building Societies, Credit Unions and Friendly Societies under federal rather than state regulation. Other co-operative schemes are to remain under state legislation as long as that legislation is consistent with national competition principles and does not permit co-operatives to engage in anti-competitive behaviour such as exclusive dealing. Unless state legislation is amended in this manner co-operatives will be moved to federal oversight as long as they can obtain a licence as a deposit taking institution.62 What this will mean for the future of co-operative finance schemes in the various states is at this time unknown.
The structure and relatively small and localised nature of Starr-Bowkett societies has proved to be an advantage on many levels. It has allowed for personalised knowledge of members to be retained and has provided a degree of financial stability unknown to many other lending institutions especially in times of economic distress. In 70 years Starr-Bowkett societies in NSW have suffered a total loss of less than $4,000,63 and in 100 years of operation, the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Societies have never had to call in a mortgage, as the personalised knowledge inherent in the Society has allowed repayments to be rescheduled to meet the member’s changed circumstances.64
Yet, it can be argued that their localised nature has played a part in their decline. As the societies do not advertise, knowledge of their existence and the advantages that they offer in terms of thrift and interest-free loans are only spread by word of mouth. As the spread of the societies narrows the knowledge of the existence of the societies also narrows, it is therefore imperative for the knowledge base to be expanded. This paper and further research on Starr-Bowkett’s can be viewed as an attempt to expand the knowledge base.
Future research will detail and analyse the growth and spread of Starr-Bowkett societies during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries; the reasons for and extent of their ability to weather economic downturns; their role in providing finance for housing and small businesses; the sector of society that has and is currently accessing such sources of finance; and the extent to which the societies and the co-operative sector as a whole has been able to survive the deregulatory process. As the longest continually operating Starr-Bowkett Society in NSW, the Newtown-Enmore Branch, now the Starr-Bowkett Statewide Co-operative Society, provides an ideal resource for such a detailed investigation.65
Starr-Bowkett societies have lasted over 160 years and in that time have provided housing finance and a means of building savings to innumerable people throughout Australia, many of whom would have been unable to attain their own home without the existence of this form of co-operative finance. Although initially under threat from reforms posited by the Wallis Inquiry and National Competition Policy guidelines on co-operatives,66 the future of Starr-Bowkett societies in NSW at least is assured with the decision of the NSW Government to update the relevant state legislation.67 Starr-Bowkett societies will have a future as long as their existence and the benefits associated with being a member of a non-profit, co-operative finance scheme that provides interest-free loans is recognised and publcised.
Notes
1. I would like to thank Mrs Joan Glennie, Past-Secretary of the Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Societies and current Director of the Starr-Bowkett Statewide Co-operative Society and member of the NSW Co-operative Housing and Starr-Bowkett’s Advisory Committee, for her assistance and enthusiasm. Thanks to anonymous referees whose helpful comments on this paper have presented new avenues of analysis for this topic.
2. T.E. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, Notes of Lectures delivered by T.E. Bowkett at the Poplar Literary Institution, 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, London, John Cleave, 1843.
3. E.J. Cleary, The Building Society Movement, Elek Books, London, 1965, pp. 109-112.
4. S.J. Price, Building Societies, their Origin and History, Franey and Company, London, 1958, p. 155; ‘Whatever Happened to Starr-Bowkett Societies?’, Latest Property News Archive, http://www.propertyinsider.com.au/, accessed 15 December 2004.
5. In a discussion of ROSCAs, Rob Christie notes that ‘Australia has formalised ROSCAs called Starr-Bowkett Cooperatives’. R. Christie, ‘Rotating Savings and Credit Associations: Ingenious Indigenous Institutions’, Mekong Update and Dialogue, vol. 3, no. 4, December 2000, p. 4, http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/publications/mekong_updates/update3.4.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2005.
6. The most extensive biographical discussion of Bowkett is to be found in S. Newens ‘Thomas Edward Bowkett: Nineteenth Century Pioneer of the Working Class Movement in East London’, History Workshop Journal, Issue 9, Spring 1980, pp. 143-8.
7. Price, Building Societies, p. 152.
8. Cleary, Building Society Movement, p. 101.
9. Prothero, ‘Chartism in London’, Past and Present, no. 44 August 1969, p. 99.
10. M. Chase, ‘Out of Radicalism: The Mid-Victorian Freehold Land Movement’, The English Historical Review, vol. 106, no. 419, April 1991, p. 323.
11. Newens, ‘Thomas Edward Bowkett’, p. 143.
12. T.E. Bowkett, The Bane and the Antidote: or Bad and Good Associations, W. Strange, London, 1850, p. ii.
13. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, p. 10.
14. Bowkett, Bane and Antidote, Preface.
15. The Northern Star and Leed’s General Advertiser, 19 August 1843.
16. Ibid., 26 August 1843.
17. Ibid., September 2 and 9 1843.
18. Phyllis Deane and W.A. Cole, British Economic Growth 1688-1959, second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969, pp. 10, 27; Gareth Stedman Jones, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship Between Classes in Victorian Society, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1984, pp. 160-7.
19. Prothero, ‘Chartism in London’, p. 146.
20. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, p. 3.
21. T.E. Bowkett, Alchemy, or the Art of Converting the Baser metals into Gold, Familiarly Explained, containing also, among Much Important Information, A Highly Valuable Receipt, for the Manufacture of an Accumulating Fund, Investment, Provident, Building, Equitable Association, W. Strange, London, 1844, pp. 13-15.
22. Cleary, `Building Society Movement’, p. 104.
23. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, pp. 7-8.
24. Bowkett, Bane and Antidote, p. 301.
25. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, p. 6.
26. Bowkett, Bane and Antidote, p. 239.
27. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, p. 4.
28. Ibid.
29. Bowkett, Bane and Antidote, p. 35.
30. Ibid., p. 44.
31. Herbert G. Bab, ‘The Evolution of the British Building Society’, The Economic History Review, vol. 9, no. 1, November 1938, pp. 56-7.
32. Bowkett, `Freehold Property for Mechanics’, p. 19.
33. Bowkett, Bane and Antidote, p. 57.
34. Ibid., p. 60.
35. Ibid., pp. 56-60.
36. Ibid., pp. 39-41.
37. Ibid., p. 57; and Personal Communication with Joan Glennie, 24 January 2005.
38. Ibid., pp. 238, 353.
39. Chase, ‘Out of Radicalism‘, p. 323.
40. Prothero, ‘Chartism in London’, p. 99-100.
41. M. Hovell, The Chartist Movement, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1970, p. 58.
42. R.B. Starr, cited by Cleary, Building Society Movement, p. 105.
43. Cleary, Building Society Movement, pp. 105, 107; Price, Building Societies, p. 154-155.
44. Brian T. Robson, Urban Growth: An Approach, Methuen, London, 1973, p. 155.
45. Mr A.H. Bailey, Discussion on Mr Brabrook’s Paper, in E.W. Brabrook, ‘The Relation of the State to Thrift; Ten Years Statistics of Friendly and Similar Institutions’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, vol. 48, No. 1 (March 1885), p. 49. http://www.jstor.org/ Accessed 31 January 2005.
46. Cleary, Building Society Movement, p. 105; Robson Urban Growth, p. 156
47. E.W. Brabrook, ‘The Progress of Friendly Societies and Other Institutions Connected with the Friendly Societies Registry Office During the Ten years 1884-94’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58, No. 2 (June 1895),
p. 295. http://www.jstor.org/ Accessed 31 January 2005.
48. Robson, Urban Growth, pp. 156-164.
49. Cleary, Building Society Movement, pp. 109-113.
50. Cleary, Building Society Movement, pp. 114.
51. Building Societies Gazette, September 1869, p. 140, cited by Cleary, Building Society Movement, p. 107.
52. N.G. Butlin Investment in Australian Economic Development, 1861-1900, Department of Economic History, Australian National University, Canberra, 1972, pp. 274-9.
53. For years 1868-1900, Butlin, Investment in Australian Economic Development, pp. 250-3. Other years as indicated.
54. Became the Newcastle Permanent Building Society. History of the Newcastle Permanent.
http://www.newcastlepermanent.com.au/about/index.asp accessed 17 December 2004.
55. A major difficulty in presenting an Australia-wide picture of Starr-Bowkett Societies is the lack of any Australia-wide data. As the societies have always been under the control of the various States any data is scattered, and the ABS when it did collect data on Starr-Bowketts included such data in with co-operative housing schemes or terminating building societies and then ceased to collect any data on Starr-Bowketts.
56. NSW Official Yearbook, NSW Government Printer, Sydney, various years.
57. NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 46 (1985)- Community Law Reform Program: Attachment of Moneys Deposited with Building Societies and Credit Unions, ch. 5, 5.8, http://www.lawlinks.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R46CHP5, accessed 16 January 2005.
58. Ibid.
59. Letter from the Secretary Newtown-Enmore Starr-Bowkett Society to the Hunter Mutual Co-operative Starr Bowkett Societies, 26 July 1985. Letter provided by Joan Glennie.
60. NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee, 1998 Estimates Committee Hearings, Monday 27 July 1998, NSW Legislative Council Hansard.
61. In 1970s Building Societies controlled 2.8 per cent of total assets held by financial institutions in Australia which rose to 7.1 per cent in 1980, falling to 5.7 per cent in 1985 and 3.1 per cent by 1990. Credit Unions controlled 0.3 per cent in 1970, 1.4 per cent in 1980, 4.6 per cent in 1985 and 1.2 per cent in 1990. M.K. Lewis and R.H. Wallace, The Australian Financial System, Longman Cheshire, South Melbourne, 1993 reprint, p. 86
62. Commonwealth of Australia, Financial System Inquiry Final Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, March 1997, Recommendations 36 and 39 respectively and p. 325
63. Gerald Peacocke, Debate on the Co-operative Housing and Starr-Bowkett Societies Bill, Second Reading, NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard No. 46, 24 September 1997.
64. Personal Communication with Joan Glennie, 24 January 2005.
65. Archives of the Newtown-Enmore Branch from 1911 are held in Mitchell Library, Sydney.
66. Co-operatives Legislation Amendment Bill, second reading, No. 8, 23 October 2001, NSW Legislative Council Hansard.
67. In South Australia, which has had a long history of Starr-Bowkett Societies the government has repealed the 1975 legislation allowing the formation of such societies in accordance with National Competition Policy guidelines. Report to the National Competition Council: Implementation of National Competition Policy and Related Reforms in South Australia, Attachment 1, http://www.premcab/sa/gov/au/pdf/competition/Nccrep2000Table2.pdf, accessed 15 December 2004.
Copyright Statement
Copyright: © 2005 by Australian Society for the Study of Labour History.