“Come, Let Us Reason Together”: Trade Unions at Rowntree & Co. in the 1920s Part 1

Introduction

As part of our Rowntree Political Connections and Influences Project, The Rowntree Society carried out research into the trade unions at Rowntree’s & Co. in the 1920s.  We discovered a story which took us from York to the village of Asenby, and as far afield as Pennsylvania in the USA!  It also showed how the management at the Rowntree company involved their workers in the running of their Cocoa Works factory, the wider involvement the family had in trade union politics, and how some employees who struggled with poverty to become key changemakers with national (and even international) acknowledgement.

To tell this story, we focused on three people:

• Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree, usually known as just Seebohm, the son of Joseph Rowntree and the company’s first Labour Director.  He became company Chairman in 1923 following the retirement of his father but significantly also kept the role of Labour Director.
• Fred Hawksby, president of the York Branch of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers (NUGMW for short) and the main union leader at Rowntree’s.
• Irene Pickup, another member of the NUGMW and became a leading trade union leader playing a significant role in representing women workers.

As the research was carried out in 2025, we chose to focus on the 1920s to make the connection to the Joseph Rowntree Centenary, as it was the decade of Joseph’s death.  This decade also marked a period of transition for the Quaker Rowntree family – as a family where one generation succeeded the previous, with Seebohm and his cousin Arnold primarily taking over from the leadership of Joseph.  Each had different roles and responsibilities across the many Rowntree interests and initiatives.

There were also changes within the company where Seebohm became Chairman amid a political climate with the decline of the Liberal Party, which many of the Rowntrees were involved, and the rise of the Labour Party.  Most relevant to our focus, it was a decade of increased trade union activism and breakdowns in industrial relations.  1920, 1921 and 1926 saw the most labour disputes than in any other of the years between the two world wars.  For Rowntree & Co. the 1920s marked the first time growth had slowed for a sustained period since Fruit Pastilles became popular in the early 1880s.  Some years there were losses, and others growth, leading to lay-offs or increased employment from year to year.[1]

We’re going to tell this Rowntree history over four parts.  This first section will focus on Seebohm, Rowntree & Co. and their trade unions.  Subsequent parts will focus on the 1926 General Strike, Fred Hawksby and Irene Pickup.

Trade Unions at the Cocoa Works

Joseph Rowntree was chairman of Rowntree & Co. from 1883 until his retirement in 1923 – although even after his retirement, he continued to come to work in his office at the York factory right up to his death in February 1925.  Guided by his Quaker faith, he valued his workers, respected their opinions, and was keen for them to better themselves.  In 1890, he started to build the ‘garden factory’ at Haxby Road known as the Cocoa Works.  By 1920, it included a railway connecting to the NER branch line, sports facilities and social activities, medical provision (including a doctor and dentist), library and education programmes.  Other worker benefits included a pension scheme, and a welfare officer and social workers whose role included visiting absent employees to see how they could be helped.

Panoramic View of the Cocoa Works, Haxby Road – Borthwick Institute for Archives: JRF/RCO/11/4/1

Joseph’s concerns about wealth inequality and how Rowntree & Co. could work towards a more just distribution were set out in a memorandum he wrote to his children in 1907.  This also included his views relating to workers’ control of business and their entitlement to an increased share of the profits:

“…the enormous increase of wealth which has come to the country since the introduction of machinery has not been at all evenly distributed over the population, and that the share of the great body of workers has been inadequate.  I suppose almost all social reformers would admit that the problem of the distribution of wealth is, in this country, much more urgent than the problem of its creation; and I have no doubt, as the intelligence and self-control of the workers increase, that claims of a reasonable kind will be made under which, in one way or another, the share of profit which comes to labour will be increased, while the share which comes to capital will be lessened.  Now the temptation to the Directors of the Cocoa Works, both in their position as Directors and as well-to-do Politicians, will be to take a merely capitalistic view of these demands, and not to look at them from the true Christian standpoint.  I believe we have been right so far in creating a Pension Fund and establishing a minimum rate of wages as first steps towards meeting this problem of a juster distribution of wealth.  Whether in the future, any profit-sharing scheme (already in force in a few of our most responsive positions) or anything in the nature of a co-operative scheme, should be entered upon I cannot say.  What I wish to urge, however, is, that the steps we have hitherto take are, I think, probably only the first steps which it will be right for the Company to take, and I hope that those upon whom its direction rests will be prepared, as new problems present, to deal with them with large-hearted and unselfish intelligence.”[2]

One of Joseph’s key initiatives to further these aims was the establishment of the company’s first Labour Department in and the appointment of his son, Seebohm Rowntree, as the first Labour Director in 1897.

However, Rowntree & Co. were initially not welcoming to trade unions; despite the first departments becoming unionised in 1913[3], requests by workers for trade union recognition were still being refused in 1916.  This did not deter the unions as by 1919, 90% of workers were union members and this high membership remained throughout the 1920s.[4]  The vast majority belonged to the National Union of General Workers, which became National Union of General and Municipal Workers (NUGMW) in 1924.  It is now the GMB Union which still represents workers at the factory on Haxby Road run by Nestlé.

Such high union membership led to a change in approach at Rowntree’s, although the company maintained its opposition to becoming a “closed shop” which would have meant compulsory trade union membership.  In 1926, Fred Hawksby stated that, “no objection was or has been offered by the firm to their employees joining a Trade Union.  On the other hand, they feel that it is desirable that the employees should be members of a Trade Union…” and “I have been making inquiries with regard to the Shop Steward movement in other factories and have not been able to find one where the Shop Stewards enjoy such privileges as they do in this factory”.[5]

Three Members of the NUGMW – Cocoa Works Magazine Easter 1926

However, there were a couple of aspects of the trade union movement where both Joseph and Seebohm remained opposed:

1. Industrial Action: both compared trade unions taking industrial action to warfare which is a particularly strong comparison for Quaker pacifists such as themselves.[6]  However ethical in their business practices, the Rowntrees were still business owners who benefitted more from the success of the company than the thousands of workers they employed.  They did, however, insist that education was the way to avoid industrial action – both for workers and employers with Seebohm writing in 1926 that “…on both sides, goodwill must be reinforced by education.”[7]
2. Socialism: the Rowntree family had a long association with the Liberal Party, not just as members but also as Liberal councillors and MPs.  Seebohm had a close relationship with Lloyd George who, as Prime Minister, invited Seebohm to be an advisor and sit on many of his government committees.  In an Adult School class of 1897, Seebohm spoke out against socialism saying that he agreed with its aims of equality of opportunity but did not believe it presented practical ways of achieving it.[8]  However, his biographer, Asa Briggs, thought that Seebohm did not really understand socialism and he also had strong connections, sometimes friendships with notable socialists and even anarchists.[9]  J.R. Clynes, the National President of the N.U.G.M.W. and Labour Party leader 1921-22, once referred to Seebohm by saying, “here comes the greatest socialist of us all – he does the things we talk about”.[10]

Seebohm Rowntree’s ‘Human Factor’

Seebohm Rowntree was Rowntree & Co.’s Labour Director from 1897 to 1936 and Company Chairman from 1923 to 1941.  Although he held the same Quaker beliefs in ethical business practices as his father, Joseph, he was in many ways a different kind of person.

He was described by Clarence Northcott – a colleague who will be introduced more fully below – as having inherited his mother, Tonie’s, precision and realistic attention to detail.  He was described as being precise in all things; very punctual, intensely ordered, he got through a remarkable volume of work, and had exacting standards which he expected others to match.[11]

Northcott also commented on Seebohm’s management style saying, “I’ve met many men, but never one with the same knack of handling men”.  However, he noted that he was much better at dealing with groups of people than individuals and was not the best judge of character.[12]  Despite this, Seebohm seems to have had his father’s knack for finding and bringing in people to help him with his work; several would become loyal and trusted assistants and advisors.

Seebohm Rowntree in 1923 & front cover of The Human Factor in Business (pub. 1921) – Seebohm photo: Borthwick Institute for Archives Rowntree Photo 4/053 

Seebohm had published his influential work, Poverty: a study of town life, in 1901 with one of its key assertions being that a leading cause of poverty was workers receiving pay that was insufficient for a decent standard of living.[13]  He continued with his sociological research outside of his work in the Rowntree company, which was funded mainly through the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT),[14] but also occasionally by both the Joseph Rowntree Social Services Trust (now the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust) and the Joseph Rowntree Village Trust (now the Joseph Rowntree Foundation).  There was overlap between these two roles in what Seebohm was advocating – the company becoming the practical expression of his theory, with an added element of having to protect his reputation; how could he argue nationally for better wages and working conditions if this wasn’t being attempted at the Cocoa Works?  There was also an overlap in the people he employed which blurred the distinction between Charitable Trust funded research and company employees with several people moving between them.

There were two people who were key to Seebohm’s dealing with trade unions in the 1920s:

• In 1919, he brought the Australian sociologist, Clarence Northcott to work with him at Rowntree’s.  Northcott was a Methodist and had similar views regarding industrial democracy and that co-operation would produce an ethical society.[15]  He was given the role of Labour Manager in 1924 – and took over the day-to-day work that Seebohm had been doing as Labour Director once he became Company Chairman.[16]

Factory Organisation by Clarence H. Northcott et al Title Page (pub. 1928)

• William Wallace: trained as a solicitor and first met Seebohm in 1914, after he writing to him praising his work on social reform and asking to help him with a “lead” which could get 23-year-old Wallace a job.[17]  Wallace could not enlist to fight in the First World War due to poor eyesight, so Seebohm got Wallace a job working in government on the Reconstruction Committees.[18]  In 1919, Wallace moved to York to live in New Earswick and was given work by Seebohm to do investigations into the viability of profit-sharing schemes and unemployment insurance.  Although employed by Rowntree & Co., Wallace seems used as an independent advisor and as Seebohm’s ‘private secretary’ – sometimes working on company business as well as on other initiatives funded by the JRCT.[19]  Even after Seebohm’s retirement in the 1940s, Wallace remained employed by Rowntree’s and eventually became Chairman in 1952.

William Wallace in 1929 – Bortwick Institute for Archives Rowntree Photo 6/261

But there were others too, including F.D. Stuart.  He became one of Seebohm’s most loyal assistants who helped him with much of his sociological studies, but was also sometimes asked to talk to trade unionists outside of Rowntree & Co.

Seebohm and his team advocated for his vision of ethical management through publications such as The Human Needs of Labour in 1919, The Human Factor in Business in 1921, and Industrial Unrest: a way out in 1922.  They attended and organised business conferences to encourage other businesses to take up their ideas; most notably establishing the Management Research Groups, and what are now known as the Rowntree Business Lectures.  These can be found online here, and include several talks and other contributions from Fred Hawksby.

Industrial Unrest: A Way Out by Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree (pub. 1922)

Rowntree’s Central Works Council

One of the Seebohm’s key initiatives was the establishing workplace democracy in the company through the system of works’ councils.  This was first set up in 1919, and each department had its own council.  Workers were elected to their departmental council by members of their department, with at least one position reserved for a trade union shop steward.[20]  From its inception, it included women workers – meaning that up to 1928 they were able to vote in their workplace before they could in Parliamentary elections.

The members of the departmental councils then elected who would represent them in the Central Works Council.  This body had real power within the company with only the topics of wages and working conditions outside its remit[21]; although, as will be explained below, even these were challenged.  The trade unions could raise their own concerns separately from the Works Council[22] but in practice it seems that most, if not all, of the worker representatives elected were either Shop Stewards or actively involved with the union.

Seebohm states in The Human Factor in Business that although “neither membership of the council nor voting is confined to trade unionists, but, as a non-unionist would stand but little chance of election, it may be said that the committees are substantially trade union bodies so far as the representation of workers is concerned”.[23]  Although we have not been able to find direct evidence to prove that this, it is likely that union meetings would agree on proposals to bring to the Works Council.  In addition to Seebohm, Northcott, Wallace, Hawksby, and Pickup all in different documents state the strong union involvement.[24]  Elected workers were given time away from their usual duties to attend meetings and carry out other Works Council activities.

Rowntree & Co.’s Central Works Council 1920 – annotated from original in Cocoa Works Magazine November 1920

The Central Council was divided into different committees, each responsible for various aspects of life at the Cocoa Works.  In 1920, the Executive Committee consisted of Seebohm as the Chairman, with his brother Stephen Rowntree representing the directors, T.H. Appleton – the factory manager and also a director was Deputy Chairman, and Fred Hawksby was Vice-Chairman.[25]  There were some changes to its members through the 1920s, with Irene Pickup and Jack Baker being elected to it in 1922, but Seebohm, Appleton and Hawksby were constants.

Other committees included the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Committee which organised Joseph’s memorial service at the factory following his death in 1925.  A spin off from this was responsible for building the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Library at the front of the factory – money was raised from the workers to pay for its interior.

Appeals Committee

The Appeals Committee was established so that workers who felt they had been unfairly disciplined could challenge it.  It consisted of an equal number of workers and management and had the power to overturn or reduce disciplinary decisions.  A case from 1922 involved a worker who had punched his overlooker.  He had support of many colleagues and was represented at the Appeals Board hearing by both a shop steward and another council member.  His punishment of dismissal was reduced to a 4-week suspension since he had been provoked by the overlooker and there was a consensus that this overlooker was quite irritating.  Seebohm was informed as well as Hawksby.  Hawksby confirmed that the overlooker was someone who the men found challenging to work under.[26]

William Wallace was sometimes part of the Appeals Committee and in his unpublished autobiography, he recollects his discomfort at overturning decisions made by Seebohm and the other directors.  Years later he spoke to Seebohm about a specific case and Seebohm responded by telling him that he originally thought the punishment was too severe but was outvoted by the board, so all Wallace had done was reinstate Seebohm’s original intent.[27]

Works Rules

Starting in 1921, the new Works Rules for the running of the Cocoa Works were drawn up in collaboration between workers and management through the Central Council.[28]  Irene Pickup is credited with playing a key role in this.[29]  The new Works Rules were implemented in early 1922, and Seebohm declared that they are an agreed code, not one implemented on the workforce.[30]

Psychology Department

A committee was also established to set up the Psychology Department which employed first industrial psychologist in a British company.  It took years to get this appointment right, not just finding the best person but also the terms of the role.[31]  The role wasn’t just to look after what we would now call the mental health of the workers, but there was more of an emphasis in working out how to get the most work from people.  A key part was the “time and motion” studies which would ascertain how fast factory tasks could be achieved and then implement that as the expectation.  Overlookers were responsible for making sure workers met this as a minimum.[32]  An aspect negotiated for the Psychology Department was that no time and motion study could be carried out without prior agreement from the trade union.[33]

Profit Sharing Scheme

Profit Sharing Scheme was finally implemented in 1923 and had been drawn up by a committee which included J.B. Morrell, Wallace, Pickup and had Hawksby as its chairman.[34]  This divided profits made above a set threshold between workers who earned below a certain wage.  Both Seebohm and the union had been sceptical about this at first and Joesph was the driving force behind it.[35]  Reaching an agreement with the union via the Central Council was essential to its implementation, a key aspect being that everyone got the same amount.  This meant lower paid workers received a bonus of a higher percentage of their earnings than higher paid colleagues.[36]

Jack Baker and Trade Union Militancy

During our research, Jack Baker was a name that kept coming up – particularly in relation to more militant union requests and positions.  He worked in the Melange Department; he was likely a Shop Steward and was a member of the Central Council and served on its Unemployment and Executive Committees – so played an influential and important role.  Examples of his demands recorded in the minutes of the Central Council include a call for the union to request Rowntree’s becoming a “closed shop”, and that a workers’ representative should sit on the committee which decided the wage structure.[37]  His positions were often supported by other trade unionists including both Hawksby and Pickup,[38] but he seems to have been a constant thorn in management’s side – he had an ability to really get to Seebohm.

Northcott relayed an incident where redundancies were being made, and he had divided the workforce into several meetings where Seebohm would explain what was happening and why.  In one, Baker stood up and attacked management in what Northcott describes as “fierce terms” and was applauded by many of the women workers.  Despite Hawksby standing up and asserting that Baker’s views were not representative of the general workforce, after the meeting Seebohm was furious – not at Baker who he expected this from but because of the women who supported him!  Seebohm’s wife, Lydia, said that that evening he had “sunk into a complete melancholia” and she had to persuade him not to give everything up.[39]

A Central Works Council Meeting 1920 – Borthwick Institute for Archives Rowntree Photo 25/045

Baker was not the only one who was more militant.  An important flash point in a Central Council meeting came in August 1921, when W.H. Goodson of the Cream Department asserted that the workers wanted control of the company, not just to be consulted.  The minutes of this meeting record Goodson using phrases such as “tackling the root causes” and “the evils” of the present industrial system which are reminiscent of the language used by Joseph Rowntree in his 1904 Memorandum setting up his three Trusts.[40]

Often Seebohm responded to these demands by reaffirming the status quo reminding them that the Board of Directors were appointed by shareholders and had no power to entrust their responsibilities to others.  He also regularly asserts the need for co-operation based on shared aims – the success of the business and welfare of its staff, and that dissatisfied staff have the right to go to their union who will raise it with management and the board.[41]

Fred Hawksby, as the leader of the union, could also demonstrate militancy.  Northcott describes an incident where Seebohm’s oldest son, Joseph Seebohm Rowntree, who oversaw the Psychology Department, sent someone to undertake a Time and Motion study without first agreeing it with the union.  As soon as Hawksby learned of this, he went straight to Seebohm and said, “either you get your man out of that department by this afternoon, or I bring this whole factory out on strike”.  Hawksby got his way, and I’m sure Seebohm would have also had strong words with his son![42]

It is, however, repeatedly noted how few and far between these incidents were.  Rowntree’s generally had good relations with their unions – this is noted widely by both management and trade unionists.

Cocoa Works Magazine

First started in the early 1900s by Joseph Rowntree as a way of staying in touch with the growing number of workers, the Cocoa Works Magazine is an incredible source of evidence with the whole life of the company and factory reflected in its pages.  It allowed management to communicate with the work force.

Excerpts of Cocoa Works Magazines from the 1920s

Throughout the 1920s, there were repeated articles and references to trade unions and industrial relations.  Debates were played out with both workers and management able to set out their views through editorials, articles and records of speeches given at the Cocoa Works.  It also contained the Central Works Council minutes including details of the debates and who said what.  Guest writers from outside the factory were invited to contribute and these included those high up in the N.U.G.M.W. such as Will Thorne (one of its founders) and J.R. Clynes.  Such openness is remarkable in a company magazine that generally reflected management’s stance, particularly when it allowed space for more militant perspectives.

————————————————————-

This is the end of Part 1 of “Come, Let Us Reason Together”: Trade Unions at Rowntree & Co. in the 1920s.  Parts 2, 3 & 4 will be coming soon – keep an eye out for them.  Sign up to our email Newsletter here so you don’t miss them.–

———————————————————–

We presented this research at our 2025 York Festival of Ideas event as part of the Joseph Rowntree Centenary.  You can see the recording of the event here:

———————————————————-

Researched and written by Nick Smith, Executive Director of The Rowntree Society.

Additional research by The Rowntree Society’s research volunteers, Maisie Brenchley & James Heathfield.

Reference and Footnotes

[1] As can be seen through the updates given by management in the Cocoa Works Magazines throughout the 1920s

[2] Rowntree, J. 1907 Memorandum from Joseph Rowntree to his children on wealth: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/1/1/5

[3] Hawksby, F. 1926 ‘The Value and Importance of the Shop Steward Movement’ Cocoa Works Magazine Easter 1926 pp.194

[4] Thorne, W. 1927 ‘The Story of the N.U.G. & M. W.’ Cocoa Works Magazine Christmas 1927 pp.345; Fitzgerald, R. 1995 Rowntree and the marketing revolution Cambridge University Press pp.252-253; Sheils, B. 2024 Seebohm Rowntree and the Conditions of Work: an illustrated talk accessed 10/9/2025

[5] Hawksby, F. 1926 ‘The Value and Importance of the Shop Steward Movement’ Cocoa Works Magazine Easter 1926 pp.194

[6] E.g. Joseph Rowntree’s Christmas Letter in Cocoa Works Magazine Christmas 1920; Seebohm Rowntree’s views on the 1926 General Strike: Rowntree, B.S. ‘Christmas Message’ Cocoa Works Magazine Christmas 1926 pp.250; Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.255-6

[7] Rowntree, B.S. ‘Industrial Strife and the Way Out: forward to the Educational Programme for 1926-27’ Cocoa Works Magazine October 1926 pp.321

[8] Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.23

[9] E.g. Sidney & Beatrice Webb, Piotr Kropotkin: Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.23; Pitt, S. 2022 ‘Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree and Piotr Kropotkin: A friendship transcending politics?’ New Rowntree Histories accessed 11/9/2025

[10] As relayed by Northcott, C. 1956 Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

[11] Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

[12] Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

[13] Rowntree, B.S. 1901 Poverty: a study of town life Macmillan https://wellcomecollection.org/works/cv2ekdg7/items

[14] Freeman, M. 2004 The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust: a study in Quaker Philanthropy and Adult Education 1904-1954 Sessions

[15] Bourke, H. 2000 ‘Northcott, Clarence Hunter (1880–1968)’ Australian Dictionary of Biography  adb.anu.edu.au/biography/northcott-clarence-hunter-11256 accessed 16/10/25

[16] Fitzgerald, R. 1995 Rowntree and the marketing revolution Cambridge University Press pp.270-271; Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

[17] Borthwick Institute for Archives WW/11/1/2/1

[18] Wallace, W. 1985 I Was Concerned pp.67-100: Borthwick Institute for Archives JRRT/8/2/54

[19] Forrester, H. 1990 William and Nancie: a celebration of marriage William Sessions pp.101-106, Wallace, W. 1985 I Was Concerned pp.101-139; see Freeman, M. 2004 The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust: a study in Quaker Philanthropy and Adult Education 1904-1954 pp.81 – although not named some of Wallace’s work is included in Seebohm’s JRCT funded 1921 publication, The Human Factor in Business

[20] The Rules and Regulations of the Works Councils set out in March 1919 are reprinted in Appendix A of Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.349-364; Original documents relating to the Works Councils are held by the Borthwick Institute for Archives: R/WC; Correspondence between factory manager T.H. Appleton and trade unions e.g. Borthwick Institute of Archives: R/DP/F/11/2/9/18

[21] Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.350

[22] Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.350

[23] Seebohm, B.S. 1921 The Human Factor in Business Longmans, Green & Co. pp134

[24] E.g. Wallace, W. 1985 I Was Concerned pp.67-100 Borthwick Institute for Archives JRRT/8/2/54; C.H. Northcott, C.H. 1927, ‘Co-operation with Employees’, Offprint from Confectionery Journal Borthwick Institute for Archives: R/DL/L/24; Pickup, I. ‘The Value of the Central Works Council’ Cocoa Works Magazine Christmas 1925; Hawksby, F. ‘The Value and Importance of the Shop Steward Movement’ Cocoa Works Magazine Easter 1926

[25] Cocoa Works Magazine November 1920 pp.156-7; Central Works Council Minutes: Borthwick Institute for Archives R/WC/2

[26] Minutes of the Appeals Committee 4th April 1922 and related documents: Borthwick Institute of Archives R/WC/CA/1/1, R/WC/CA/2/1, R/WC/CA/5

[27] Wallace, W. 1985 I Was Concerned pp.128-129: Borthwick Institute for Archives JRRT/8/2/54

[28] Cocoa Works Magazine June 1921 pp.269-270, 274

[29] Cocoa Works Magazine Summer 1952 pp.22

[30] Cocoa Works Magazine December 1921 pp.33

[31] Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.235; Cocoa Works Magazine March 1923 pp.177-178; also see Cocoa Works Magazines from May 1920 to 1923

[32] Fitzgerald, R. 1995 Rowntree and the marketing revolution Cambridge University Press pp.265; 267-268

[33] Wallace, W. 1985 I Was Concerned pp.122: Borthwick Institute for Archives JRRT/8/2/54; Northcott, C. 1956 Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

[34] Central Works Council Minutes 3rd May 1922 Cocoa Works Magazine June 1922

[35] Briggs, A. 1961 A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree Longmans pp.173

[36] Cocoa Works Magazine December 1922 pp.150

[37] Cocoa Works Magazine Christmas 1920 pp.189,191

[38] E.g. Central Works Council Minutes 1st March 1922 Cocoa Works Magazine June 1922

[39] Northcott, C. 1956 Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

[40] Cocoa Works Magazine December 1921 pp.31

[41] e.g. Cocoa Works Magazine December 1921 pp.31; Cocoa Works Magazine October 1926 pp.321; Cocoa Works Magazine April 1927 pp.272

[42] Northcott, C. 1956 Memorandum of interview with C. H. Northcott: Borthwick Institute for Archives RFAM/BSR/JRF/11/16

Newspapers as a political tool: The Rowntree family and the problem of the Liberal Press

As part of our Rowntree Political Connections and Influences project, we wanted to undertake research exploring the Rowntrees’ ownership of newspapers in the early 20th century.  We collaborated with the University of York’s Institute for Public Understanding of the Past to offer an internship to undertake this project.  Charlotte Vallis completed this internship in the summer of 2025 and wrote this piece for our website based on her findings.

The Rowntree family are not widely known for their ownership of newspapers, but it forms an interesting chapter of the family’s political engagement. In 1903, Joseph Rowntree was convinced to purchase papers in Darlington, by Charles Starmer who was secretary of the Darlington Liberal Association.[2] The fear was that, although Darlington’s Northern Echo was running at a loss, if Rowntree didn’t step in, it would likely be bought up by a Conservative supporter and become part of the conservative “gutter press”.[3] This was the start of the Rowntree’s involvement in the provincial press and it came from the desire to strengthen the Liberal Party through the press. In 1904, Joseph Rowntree formed the Joseph Rowntree Social Services Trust (JRSST) to manage his growing newspaper interests. JRSST, now the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, was given a specific directive to focus on political aims, including managing the finances of the newspaper companies being purchased.[4] The quotation used in the title is from Joseph Rowntree’s memorandum on establishing the JRSST and makes clear his intent.

Arnold S. Rowntree, nephew of Joseph Rowntree, was appointed Director of this Trust. Known for his friendly and approachable character, “Chocolate Jumbo”, as the children of Bootham School and The Mount affectionately called him, worked advertising for the Rowntree’s chocolate company.[5] This may well have been why he was given oversight for the newspaper sector. In addition, however, Arnold aspired to emulate Joseph Rowntree’s beliefs and actions in his work. In 1917 Arnold made a speech on the importance of newspapers for society. He echoed his uncle’s thoughts of a decade and a half before:

“A good newspaper expresses the thoughts, wishes, troubles, aspirations, and just complaints of the public… nothing should be done to endanger the freedom of the Press…because Dr Johnson was truly right when he said “nothing adds so much to the glory of a country as a free and independent Press.””[6]

Realistically, the Rowntree definition of “free and independent press” meant newspapers that were free to oppose the Conservative point of view more than anything else. Minutes of meetings of the JRSST continually praise newspapers where they have been perceived as helpful in supporting the Rowntree’s chosen political candidate.[8] The political aims of the newspapers sometimes came at the expense of the Rowntree’s other concerns: for example, an early scandal related to inclusion of betting information in their newspapers.[9]

Other issues quickly arose. Records show most of the Rowntree’s papers continually running at a loss. The Minute books regularly record requests for loans from the newspapers, which were typically granted and then written off.[10] This was only worsened by WW1, which led to a scarcity of paper and subsequent increases in running costs.[11] Furthermore, reading the Minute books, as time goes on, there is a growing sense that those who are leading the newspaper interests, Arnold Rowntree included, are increasingly overstretched by what newspapers required. In 1919, Seebohm Rowntree raised concerns about expanding size of newspaper interests, “in relation to the available time and the health of the three or four men bearing the main burden of the work”.[12] Almost two years later, Arnold Rowntree and J.B. Morrell would echo the weight of the “heavy burden” of newspaper ownership.[13] At this same meeting, Lord Cowdray was mentioned for the first time. Cowdray ultimately established the Westminster Press, the company that took on the financial burden for most the Rowntree’s provincial papers by 1922, alleviating the pressure on Arnold and others.[14]

Nor would efforts in the national press prove straightforward. In 1907, the JRSST purchased the paper that would become The Nation. H. W. Massingham led the paper as editor until 1923. Massingham was “perhaps the ablest journalist of his time”.[15] Initially, Massingham’s appointment was greeted very positively amongst the Rowntrees and broader Liberal Press.[16] Massingham set high standards, holding weekly Nation Lunches, where he encouraged open discussion in order to create a more thoughtful range of ideas for the paper.[17] Arnold Rowntree was a regular attendee of these lunches when in London. In 1913, Arnold wrote to his wife that at a Nation lunch, he “was glad to find Massingham much happier than…expected”, highlighting the extent to which Massingham dominated the paper despite his encouragement of open discussion.[18] Under Massingham, The Nation was well-regarded: Ian Packer has described Massingham as successfully establishing “the house journal of the New Liberal intellectuals”.[19] Famous names were attracted to write in the paper: in October 1907, discussions were held on reimbursing Winston Churchill, and from 1913, “arrangements” were made to bring A. A. Milne to the paper.[20] However, Massingham continually ran The Nation at a loss, with the JRSST losing £50,332 throughout its time as owner.[21] Circulation remained small. This seemed to be manageable for a time, but other problems arose that meant financial concerns could no longer be ignored.

Although The Nation received significant funding from the JRSST and was technically under its control, Massingham very much viewed the paper as his. People recognised that, overall, the paper represented his views. Massingham was not afraid to court controversy: one of his employees at The Nation was H. W. Nevinson. Nevinson was also researching the issue of slavery on cocoa plantations, with Massingham’s encouragement, leading to a scandal for the Rowntrees and Cadburys.[22] Massingham personally challenged the Rowntree’s political views during WW1. In December 1916, Seebohm Rowntree raised new prime minister, David Lloyd George’s, concerns, that The Nation, a paper “owned by those friendly to him” was attacking him personally. Seebohm further said “things stated as fact by H. W. Massingham were not true” and that Seebohm was thus being put “in a false position”.[23] Seebohm, and the Rowntrees more widely, were supporters of Lloyd George. Seebohm’s frustration is evident. Arnold Rowntree, as peacemaker, replied to his complaint. He acknowledged Seebohm’s concerns, saying “he had already suggested to H.W.M the elimination of personalities from The Nation”.[24] Seebohm pushed the point and a resolution was taken to monitor Massingham and exclude personal attacks from The Nation, although policy criticisms were acceptable.[25] This became an ongoing concern.[26] At this stage, Massingham was moving away from supporting the Liberal Party and was becoming, instead a Labour supporter. His change in political focus coloured his attitude in the paper and undermined the original intent of the Rowntree’s.

Within a few years, the Rowntrees decided to sell The Nation. At the time, it was “widely regarded” that this decision came from Massingham’s continual criticisms of Lloyd George, although this was not entirely true.[27] On 3rd June 1921, Arnold raised concerns over the losses at the Nation, highlighting an anticipated loss for the year of £6,240. He felt “careful consideration” was needed regarding keeping the paper open. However, Joseph Rowntree intervened, saying “the Nation must be kept going at all costs.”[28] The resulting need for significant cost-cutting was communicated to Massingham by Arnold, but to little avail. Massingham would not take responsibility for the financial problems and things worsened throughout 1922.[29] In December, Massingham wrote to Arnold, offering his resignation. He referred to no financial concerns, instead giving his reasons for resignation as the “inevitable” re-election of Lloyd George, as well as Massingham being “tired of Editorship”. He then said that “Seebohm’s [opinion] may be quite right” on the direction for The Nation but that he couldn’t agree.[30] Massingham certainly emphasised political division as the main problem.

Although his resignation was duly accepted, Massingham attempted to backtrack when he discovered that overtures had been made to another Liberal group, the “Oxford Summer School Group”, to buy out the Nation, thus resolving financial issues.[31] Clearly concerned, Massingham then wrote to Joseph Rowntree, complaining of his mistreatment. Massingham felt that the only reason The Nation had financial problems was because the JRSST had stopped given it as much money because of “Seebohm’s strong objection to the policy of the paper in regard to Lloyd George”. Joseph Rowntree’s reply is clear:

“To myself, it has been a great disappointment that the “Nation” could not be continued on the old lines. You speak of Seebohm’s strong objection to the policy of the paper in relation to Lloyd George, and of the resulting financial difficulties. But the “financial difficulties” are apart from this.”[32]

By directing his complaint against Seebohm, Massingham pushed too far.

Massingham offered to try to raise capital to buy the paper himself throughout early 1923. However, by April he had failed to raise even half of the amount needed. He also had a heart-attack but would not acknowledge the limitations his health placed on his venture. Instead, he still complained of poor treatment, stating that “turnip-headed Arnold” was refusing to discuss matters fairly.[33] Ultimately, The Nation was sold as planned, the JRSST unable to justify absorbing the financial losses any further. Contemporaries believed Massingham’s version of events, that “the paper was sold over” his head and he was forced out for political reasons.[34] This belief was so widespread that Arnold was forced to write an official reply to the claims. In the late 1930s, the trust was still refuting the claim that Massingham was “forced out of his position…as has been stated in print by his son, the late H. W. Nevinson, and other writers.”[35]

Arnold’s official reply repeatedly cited financial reasons as being the main cause of the sale of The Nation, not political disagreements. If you consider that, much of the provincial press had been sold for the same reason, this does not seem an unfair claim on Arnold’s part. However, Massingham’s stubborn refusal to compromise his own political beliefs in running the newspaper had certainly created tensions that were difficult to overcome. For the Rowntrees, by the early 1920s, it was clear that newspapers were not the easily controlled political tool they had hoped for.

———————————————————–

Charlotte presented this research at our event held at Bootham School in November 2025 as part of the Joseph Rowntree Centenary.  You can see the recording of the full event, including contributions from Dr. David Vessey (University of Sheffield) and Jim Waterson (London Centric), here:

———————————————————-

Charlotte Vallis Biography

Charlotte Vallis is a part-time PhD student at the University of York. Her own research focuses on Russia in the 18th century, particularly considering the confluence of gender and power. She completed an IPUP internship in Summer 2025 with The Rowntree Society for the Joseph Rowntree Centenary, exploring the Rowntree family’s newspaper ownership.

References

All images from originals held at the Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York

[1] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/BSR/JRF/9/1/1/20, “Memorandum on the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust, Limited. The Joeph Rowntree Village Trust.”, Joseph Rowntree, 1904.

[2] Paul Gliddon, “The Political Importance of Provincial Newspapers, 1903-1945: The Rowntrees and the Liberal Press,” Twentieth Century British History, 14, 1 (2003): 27.

[3] David Cloke, Social Reformers and liberals: the Rowntrees and their legacy (Conference fringe meeting, March 2014), 42.

[4] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/BSR/JRF/9/1/1/20, “Memorandum on the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust, Limited. The Joeph Rowntree Village Trust.”, Joseph Rowntree, 1904.

[5] The reference to Arnold’s nickname can be found in Elfrida Vipont, Arnold Rowntree A Life (University Press Aberdeen: Great Britain, 1956), p.51. However, this is an unreferenced work. In John Hick, John Hick An Autobiography (One World: USA, 2002) on p.19, a mention is made of “Chocolate Jumbo’s Strawberry Vit, a feast put on for us [Bootham School] at Rowntree’s chocolate factory by the head of the firm.” However, this does not directly name Arnold as Chocolate Jumbo. Bootham School were contacted for details from their magazine and confirmed a reference can be found in their July 1942 school magazine, 500-582.

[6] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/ASR/JRF/3/3, Northern Echo September 14th 1917, p.152.

[7] Both found in Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/ASR/JRF/3/3.

[8] For example, Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/1, Sheffield Independent Board Meeting, Dec. 1911

[9] Paul Gliddon, “Politics for Better or Worse: Political Nonconformity, the Gambling Dilemma and the North of England Newspaper Company, 1903-1914,” History, 87, 286 (2002): 227-244, accessed June 23rd, 2025, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24425638.

[10] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/1, First General Quarterly Meeting for 1906 Directors held at the Cocoa Works York, Wednesday Feb. 7th 1906, p.15.

[11] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/2, Meeting, November 8th 1920.

[12] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/2, Second Quarterly Meeting of the Directors of the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust Held at the Cocoa Works, York, June 3rd 1919, p.13.

[13] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/2, First Quarterly Meeting of the Directors of the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust Held at York on February 15/1921, p. 36.

[14] Ibid., p. 36; Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/BSR/JRF/9/1/1/21, Memorandum on the Provincial Press, J. B. Morrell, 19.2.1942, pps. 1-9.

[15] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/BSR/JRF/9/1/1/21, Memorandum on the Provincial Press, J. B. Morrell, 19.2.1942, p.9.

[16] Alfred F. Havighurst, Radical Journalist: H. W. Massingham (1860-1924) (Alden & Mowbray: Oxford, 1974), 144.

[17] ibid., 151.

[18] Arnold Rowntree, “Letter to Mary Rowntree, 28th January 1913”, in The Letters of Arnold Stephenson Rowntree to Mary Katherine Rowntree, 1910-1918, edited by Ian Packer (Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom, 2002), 115.

[19] Ian Packer, “Religion and the New Liberalism: The Rowntree Family, Quakerism, and Social Reform,” Journal of British Studies, 42, 2 (2003): 252, accessed June 23rd, 2025, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345607.

[20] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/1, Special Meeting of the Directors held on Monday 28th October 1907 at the Cocoa Works York, p.47; Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/1, “The Nation”, p.190.

[21] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/BSR/JRF/9/1/1/21, Memorandum on the Provincial Press, J. B. Morrell, 19.2.1942, p.10.

[22] Lowell J. Satre, Chocolate on Trial: Slavery, Politics and the Ethics of Business, (Ohio University Press: USA, 2005), p.81.

[23] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/1, Special Meeting of the Directors held at the Cocoa Works York, 22nd December 1916, p. 241.

[24] ibid., 242.

[25] ibid., 242.

[26] ibid., 281.

[27] Havighurst, Radical Journalist, 293.

[28] Borthwick Institute of Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/2, Memorandum on the Present position of the Nation, 3rd June 1921, p.42-3.

[29] Havighurst, Radical Journalist, 295.

[30] Borthwick Institute for Archives: JRRT/2/1/1/1, H. W. Massingham, “Letter to Mr. Rowntree”, 10th December 1922, p.2.

[31] Havighurst, Radical Journalist, 297.

[32] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/JR/JRF/7/1, H. W. Massingham, “Letter to Joseph Rowntree”, December 16th 1922; Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/JR/JRF/7/1, Joseph Rowntree, “Letter to H. W. Massingham”, December 21st 1922.

[33] Havighurst, Radical Journalist, 300.

[34] ibid., 301.

[35] Borthwick Institute of Archives: RFAM/BSR/JRF/9/1/1/21, A Review of the work of the J.R.S.S.T. 1905-1939 and suggestions regarding future policy, p.9.