Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:46:42.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Formation of the Co-Operative Party Re-Considered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Tony Adams
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 1987 , pp. 48 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1987

References

1 Co-operative Congress Report, 1917, pp. 561–62.Google Scholar

2 Pollard, S., “The Foundation of the Co-operative Party”, in: Essays in Labour History 1886–1923, ed. by Briggs, A. and Saville, J. (1971), p. 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Ibid., p. 189.

4 Pollard actually avoids the unpalatable evidence of 1914 and 1915 by describing 1913 as the “last important occasion before 1917 when the matter was discussed”. Ibid.

5 Ibid. The Congress votes highlighted by Pollard were as follows: 1900– for 409 (31%), against 905; 1905, first motion – for 654(71%), against 271; 1905, second motion – for 135 (14%), against 807; 1913– for 580 (30%), against 1,346.

6 The Co-operative News, 1905, pp. 710, 718. The first motion read: “That this Congress is of opinion that the time has arrived when it is necessary, in the best interests of the co-operative movement, that co-operators, in and through their own organisation, should take a larger share in the legislative and administrative government of the country.” The second motion urged: “That the Congress is further of opinion that this object can be best attained by joining our forces with the Labour Representation Committee, thus forming a strong party of progress and reform”.Google Scholar

7 The problems of comparability are substantial. The 1900 resolution advocated “independent working-class representation” as a means “to secure the possession of political power by the working-classes”, Co-operative Congress Report, 1900, p. 153. There was no mention of the fledgling Labour Representation Committee, although had the resolution been carried affiliation would probably have resulted. The first motion of 1905 was, it would appear, deliberately imprecise and was carried very largely for the purposes of debate. The second motion was the only one of the four which called specifically for an alliance with Labour. The resolution debated in 1913 contained no reference to the Labour Party and, as such, does not represent evidence of an increase in support for the Labour cause over 1905.Google Scholar

8 The Co-operative News, 1906, pp. 656–57;Google Scholar Co-operative Congress Report, 1908, pp. 378–85; 1914, p. 511.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 1914, p. 510.

10 Rhodes, G. W., Co-operative-Labour Relations 1900–1962 (1962), p. 12. Rhodes reports that following the 1914 Congress “conferences were held in different areas to discuss the whole matter and three resolutions were dealt with at each of them: (1) Supporting the original scheme for a ‘Co-operative and Labour Board’; (2) The same as (1) but excluding the Labour Party, i.e., only the trade unions would be allowed to associate with the Movement; (3) disapproving of any joint action with outside bodies. The first proposal was defeated at the conferences by 905 to 464, the second by 748 to 477, whilst the third was carried by 740 to 668. A letter was forwarded to member Societies asking for their committees’ views and 38 committees supported the first proposal, 41 the second, and 178 the third. The same letter asked the Societies to consult their members at members' meetings and the figures for these were: the first resolution lost by 1,764 to 1,115; the second by 1,372 to 1,119; the third carried by 1,799 to 1,227.”Google Scholar

11 Co-operative Congress Report, 1915, p. 501.Google Scholar

12 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, loc. cit., p. 194. E. O. Greening was the most prominent spokesman among the opponents of direct co-operative political representation and a member of the Liberal Party.Google Scholar

13 See for example Carbery, Th. F., Consumers in Politics (1969), pp. 16–22;Google Scholar Bonner, A., British Co-operation (1961), pp. 133, 140–43;Google Scholar Cole, G. D. H., A Century of Co-operation (1944), pp. 315-16;Google Scholar Rhodes, , Co-operative-Labour Relations, op. cit., pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

14 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, p. 207.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 201.

16 Co-operative Congress Report, 1917, pp. 549–69. Not one of the resolution's advocates made any specific reference to an alliance with Labour throughout the debate with the exception of the mover who made the position abundantly clear: “I want to say that in this resolution there is no reference to, and no intention of, any alliance with any political party.” Ibid., p. 549.

17 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, p. 192. In fact Pollard presents very little evidence for such a claim. A letter to Henderson quoted by him refers not to national leaders, but to those local managers and activists who ran the retail societies.Google Scholar

18 Co-operative Congress Report, 1913, p. 565.Google Scholar

19 See Rhodes, , Co-operative-Labour Relations, op. cit., pp. 10–13.Google Scholar

20 Co-operative Congress Report, 1917, p. 137.Google Scholar

21 Scarce supplies of such necessities as wheat and sugar were distributed according to a “datum line” principle based on pre-war orders. However, between 1914 and 1917 membership of co-operative distributive societies had risen from 3,054,000 to 3,788,000. See Cole, , A Century of Co-operation, op. cit., pp. 265, 371.Google Scholar

22 In November 1917 some 27% of the membership of the local food-control committees were either private traders or farmers; only 2.5% were representatives of the co-operative movement. See Beveridge, W. H., British Food Control (1928), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

23 Bonner, , British Co-operation, op. cit., p. 141–42.Google Scholar

24 See for example Sheffield Associated Society Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, No 1 Branch Minutes, 3 and 24 Febravery, 3 March 1918, Sheffield Central Library; Lanarkshire Miners County Union, Executive Council Minutes, 8 December 1917 and 26 Januvery 1918, National Library of Scotland.

25 See the papers by Killingback, N. and Yeo, S. in the Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, No 43 (1981).Google Scholar

26 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, p. 209.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 208.

28 Cole, , A Century of Co-operation, p. 268.Google Scholar

29 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, p. 207.Google Scholar

30 Bonner, , British Co-operation, p. 128.Google Scholar

31 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, pp. 207–08.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 208.

33 The number of societies affiliated to the NCRC actually declined during 1919 and 1920. Only 506 societies remained affiliated by the latter date. The decline continued in 1921, when the depression in trade forced a number of societies to tighten their belts. Co-operative Congress Report, 1920, p. 125; 1921, p. 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 See the Merthyr Express, 12 December 1918; Bush, J., Behind the Lines, East London Labour 1914–1919 (1984), pp. 224–25; Sheffield Daily Independent, 1 03 1919; Liverpool Labour Party Minutes, 14 03, Liverpool Central Library.Google Scholar

35 See for example the disputes in Sheffield and Birmingham; Sheffield Trades and Labour Council, Executive Council Minutes, 23 July and 19 November 1918, 9 December 1919, 13 December 1921, Sheffield Central Library; Brightside and Carbrook Co-operative Society, Political Council Minutes, 11 and 25 July, 24 October 1918; History of the Birmingham Co-operative Society (1931), pp. 200–02.Google Scholar

36 Co-operative Congress Report, 1920, p. 126; 1921, p. 65.Google Scholar

37 Brightside and Carbrook Co-operative Society, Political Council Minutes, 25 June and 12 November 1919, 14 April 1920.

38 Co-operative Congress Report, 1920, p. 129.Google Scholar

39 Vickrage, H. M., History of the Ten Acres and Stirchley Co-operative Society (1950), pp. 85–90.Google Scholar

40 Pioneer, Merthyr, 13 03 and 6 11 1920.Google Scholar

41 Co-operative Congress Report, 1919, p.303.Google Scholar

42 A resolution endorsing an alliance with Labour was lost by 1.686 to 1,682 votes, Co-operative Congress Report, 1921, p. 496.Google Scholar

43 When proposing the Co-operative-Labour Political Alliance to the 1921 Congress, S. F. Perry, Secretary of the Co-operative Party, pointed out that “There is no constituency in the country where a co-operative candidate has been put forward without receiving the active and moral support of the Labour Party and the trade unions. There is not a municipality in the country where a co-operative candidate has not received the same loyal support. Is there one in this hail this morning, from whatever part, who could go to his society and advocate opposing the trade unions and the Labour Party?” Co-operative Congress Report, 1921, p. 483.Google Scholar

44 Ibid., 1919, pp. 527–29, 553–54.

45 Ibid., p. 187.

46 See for example Woolf, L., Co-operation and the Future of Industry (1918); id.,Google Scholar Co-operation and Socialism (1921).Google Scholar Also Rev. Ramsay, G. A., inaugural address to the 1920 Congress, Co-operative Congress Report, 1920, p. 61.Google Scholar

47 Mercer, T. W., The Co-operative Movement in Politics (1920), p. 6.Google Scholar

48 Sheffield Daily Independent, 20 May and 9 June 1920.

49 Mercer, , The Co-operative Movement in Politics, op. cit., p. 11.Google Scholar

50 Cole, , A Century of Co-operation, pp. 371–72, 375.Google Scholar

51 Co-operative Congress Report, 1921, pp. 215, 223, 244, 292.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 488.

53 Ramsay, , inaugural address, loc. cit., p. 62.Google Scholar

54 Pollard, , “The Foundation”, p. 189.Google Scholar

55 Barnes, A., The Political Aspect of Co-operation, revised and enlarged ed. (1926), pp. 26–27.Google Scholar