Good Capitalist
Seebohm Rowntree, 1871-1954. By Asa Briggs. (Longman, 30s.) SEEBOIIM ROWNTREE was perhaps the finest flower of Christian capitalism in England. His father, Joseph, was a Quaker cocoa manufac- turer who greatly expanded his own business and instituted notable Works of philanthropy. His mother was a Dane, whose maiden name was Seebohm. Through her he was related to Frederic Seebohm, the economic historian.
It is tempting to explain his long and ap- parently almost blameless career in terms of hereditary influence, and to leave it at that. He seems, indeed, to have gone through life with his English Nonconformist conscience neatly wrapped in Scandinavian cellophane. He hated drunkenness and gambling only a very little less than he hated poverty and unemployment. He regarded cinemas and dance halls as 'a new social problem which urgently calls for solution.' He worked steadily and relentlessly—seldom feverishly. 'He did not like to keep others wait- ing, and he was never willing to wait himself.'
Fortunately, the man was not perfect, nor was he quite invariably true to type. Professor Briggs, in his masterly study of Rowntree's public activities, drops a few hints as to his private character. He seems to have been weak in humour, though he had that slightly menac- ing attribute, `a twinkle in the eye.' His judgment of people was erratic. Except that he had a passion for the live theatre, he seems to have been a Philistine of the first order, describing Chicago as 'a kind of super-Paris.' It was his nature (reflected nowadays in the Bow Group) to investigate problems in detail, and so to inti- mate the need for reform, but then to leave the political fighting to others. His moral impact upon the British business community and its political henchmen between the wars was strictly limited. The Welfare State was established only when the working class came to the top, with Bcvin's entry into the Cabinet in 1940—just as Indian independence came only after Britain became dependent upon America in 1945.
But while it is true that Britain has been spared revolution through the conservatism of Labour rather than through the enlightenment of Capital, it is equally true that Labour's con- servatism was in part due to the mere existence, during the crucial period, of a few capitalists like Rowntree. He had the wisdom to see that the new feudalism of the trade union movement would not, if allowed free play, destroy the feudalism of management. And he was no old- fashioned Liberal in his readiness to accept, even to welcome, a large measure of State planning, though he drew the line at State ownership. More surprising still was his departure from Quaker principles in condemning appeasement in the 1930s. `Even I,' he wrote to an American friend, 'who have been brought up as a Quaker and had all the teaching as to the wrongfulness of war, can see no way of dealing with Hitler except by the use of superior force.' But he did not campaign for rearmament. Campaigning was not in his blood.
He was an analyst and a counsellor; at best a prodder. For the labours of research which he undertook--beginning with Poverty in 1901 --he was able to enlist many helpers, and many of his published works were written explicitly in collaboration with some individual, or as a member of some committee. His partnership with the late Lord Astor calls for a special mention. It is touching to think of those two conscientious plutocrats, with their somewhat un-English thoroughness and earnestness, working out si s( i sible policies for British agriculture. Lord AsIi e was the best Minister of Agriculture we mi have had between the wars, and if there wej ji any substance in the 'Cliveden set' myth CI would surely have had the job. Modest ac` gentle, he presided over a table where attentiO W. naturally gravitated towards his fascinating, n lessly wisecracking wife. The great went 4 Cliveden for enjoyment, not for serious ar 4r ment—let alone conspiracy. If their thoug had been less pleasantly distracted they mt have seen that their host had qualities a capacities which were going to waste. But the most important of Rowntree's ass" ciations was with Lloyd George, whom he ser on and off between 1912 and 1935. It was p of Lloyd George's magic that he was able command the devoted loyalty of men who wd very unlike himself. Rowntree and he shared Nonconformist background and a deep inter!' in social reform, but they shared little else. Iiii doubt their very differences were a bond. Licl George needed Rowntree's systematic mind d quiet application; also perhaps, after the bre4 up of the Coalition, his money. Rowntree knot that he lacked Lloyd George's inspiration, r demagogic fire, his enormous talent for getti0 things done. Between them, they could hail transformed Britain in a few years. But t$ outbreak of war in 1914 caused the Radical Pe gramme which they were evolving to be put loll cold storage, and the circumstances in whici Lloyd George attained national leadership '0 prived him of the means to revive it after t' war. So long as he was in power he owed 0 power to a Conservative majority. When he
0 he fell for ever.
Professor Briggs admiti, with evident regret that he has been unable to use any of 1.-10)11 George's private papers, which are now in Lordl Beaverbrook's possession. It is very much to hoped that genuine students will soon be anal° free access to documents which are vital Olt an understanding of nearly two decades LD English history. The State shows concern wilco native or naturalised works of art arc threaten° with expatriation. It ought to show at least l'' much concern when papers which may truly ii called national assets are held in seclusion. Loll Beavcrbrook is himself an outstanding histor01 writer, so he has every reason to sympathist with others who want to know and write al01/ the past. The other major limitation in Proless°1 Briggs's book is self-imposed. He has chosen° confine himself to the public aspects of RoWir tree's life. Only occasionally does he show I° any of those human features which make life comprehensible—and a biography cony pelting. We are also left wondering why Row ,: tree was given so little to do during the &con' World War. It seems odd that, when the Beveridge Committee was at work, he shoald have been no more than a member of the SO committee of Experts. He would surely 10° been the most appropriate chairman for the main committee. Nobody could have grudgeil him the fame which went to Beveridge, be, 056 he was already the leading theoretical exponerit of social security in Britain. Was he 01i Churchill's black list and, if so, why? Of ccurse, Sir Winston can never have had much of S taste for cocoa. titit4
to Dt ill 114 bi b1
is 11, tic
Of at re
cl 11
ALlItINI
Previous page
