Labour History Review

Some of the key contributions to this literature include Henry Pelling, The Origins of the Labour Party, 1880-1906, London, Macmillan, 1954; Paul Thompson, Socialists, Liberals and Labour: The Struggle for London, 1885-1914, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967; Ross McKibbin, The Evolution of the Labour Party, 1910-1924, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1974; Alun Howkins, ‘Edwardian Liberalism and Industrial Unrest: A Class View of the Decline of Liberalism’, History Workshop Journal, 4, 1977, pp. 143-61. The Origins of the Labour Party, 1880-1906 Google Scholar

See especially P. F. Clarke, Lancashire and the New Liberalism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971; K. D. Brown (ed.), Essays in Anti-Labour History: Responses to the Rise of Labour in Britain, London, Macmillan, 1974. Lancashire and the New Liberalism Google Scholar

One of the most influential contributions to this body of work has been the collection of essays edited by Eugenio Biagini and Alastair Reid, Currents of Radicalism: Popular Radicalism, Organised Labour and Party Politics in Britain, 1850-1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. Also, Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Rethinking Chartism’, in his Languages of Class: Studies in English Working-class History, 1832-1950, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983; Patrick Joyce, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class, 1848-1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991; Eugenio Biagini, Liberty, Retrenchment and Reform: Popular Liberalism in the Age of Gladstone, 1860-1880, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Currents of Radicalism: Popular Radicalism, Organised Labour and Party Politics in Britain, 1850-1914 Google Scholar

Membership had reached over one million by 1891, over two million by 1904, and had doubled again to 4,131,000 in 1919 (G. D. H. Cole, A Century of Co-operation, London, Co-operative Union, 1944, p. 371). Google Scholar

F. Hall and W. P. Watkins, Co-operation: A Survey of the History, Principles, and Organisation of the Co-operative Movement in Great Britain and Ireland, Manchester, Co-operative Union, 1937; Cole, A Century of Co-operation; Arnold Bonner, British Co-operation: A Survey of the History, Principles, and Organisation of the Co-operative Movement in Great Britain and Ireland, Manchester, Co-operative Union, 1961; Thomas Carbery, Consumers in Politics: A History and General Review of the Co-operative Party, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1969. Co-operation: A Survey of the History, Principles, and Organisation of the Co-operative Movement in Great Britain and Ireland Google Scholar

Cole, A Century of Co-operation, p. 268; Tony Adams, ‘The Formation of the Co-operative Party Reconsidered’, International Review of Social History, 32, 1987, p. 58. Google Scholar

Cole, A Century of Co-operation, p. 269. Google Scholar

Sidney Pollard, ‘The Foundation of the Co-operative Party’, in A. Briggs and J. Saville (eds), Essays in Labour History, vol. 2, London, Macmillan, 1971, pp. 185-210. Essays in Labour History 2 185 210 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Adams, ‘The Formation of the Co-operative Party Reconsidered’. See also the exchange between Adams and Pollard in International Review of Social History, 32, 1987, pp. 168-79. The Formation of the Co-operative Party Reconsidered. See also the exchange between Adams and Pollard in International Review of Social History 32 168 79 Google Scholar

Beatrice Webb deplored the ‘divi’ as representing co-operation's main attraction to workers. Beatrice Potter, The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain, London, Swan Sonnenschein, 1891. The Social Democratic Federation was equally condemnatory of the Co-operative Congress's vote against affiliation with the LRC: ‘The co-operative movement is not a political movement; it is not even a class movement. It is simply a successful experiment in joint-stock shopkeeping. It has become completely bourgeois in essence, its chief concern being with the interests of the consumer, as consumer, those of the producer receiving but scant consideration, and the idea of his emancipation has been completely lost sight of. It is simply in order to safeguard its shopkeeping interests that it seeks Parliamentary representation’ (Justice, 24 June 1905). Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

John Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974, pp. 221-2; Sidney Pollard, ‘Nineteenth Century Co-operation: From Community Building to Shopkeeping’, in A. Briggs and J. Saville (eds), Essays in Labour History, 1886-1923, London, Macmillan, 1960, pp. 74-112. Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns 221 2 Google Scholar

Peter Gurney, Co-operative Culture and the Politics of Consumption in England, c. 1870-1930, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1996, p. 196. See also Stephen Yeo (ed.), New Views of Co-operation, London, Routledge, 1988. Co-operative Culture and the Politics of Consumption in England, c. 1870-1930 196 Google Scholar

For changes in retailing sector see A. F. Alexander, ‘The Evolution of Multiple Retailing in Britain, 1870-1950: A Geographical Analysis’, PhD, University of Exeter, 1994; John Benson and Gareth Shaw (eds), The Evolution of Retail Systems, c. 1800-1914, Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1992. For the impact of these changes on the Co-operative Movement, see M. T. Hornsby, ‘Co-operation in Crisis’. Google Scholar

Gurney, Co-operative Culture, pp. 209-11. Google Scholar

Gurney, Co-operative Culture; Barbara Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century, London, Virago, 1983. Google Scholar

Gurney, Co-operative Culture, p. 19. Google Scholar

See Martin Purvis, ‘The Development of Co-operative Retailing in England and Wales, 1851-1901: A Geographical Survey’, Journal of Historical Geography 16, 1990, pp. 314-31. Such measurements must be considered as crude, however, since they underestimate the success of some very small societies in dominating local communities. The Development of Co-operative Retailing in England and Wales, 1851-1901: A Geographical Survey Journal of Historical Geography 16 314 31 Google Scholar

Duncan Tanner, Political Change and the Labour Party, 1900-1918, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990; see also Jon Lawrence, Speaking for the People: Party, Language, and Popular Politics in England, 1867-1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 63. Political Change and the Labour Party, 1900-1918 Google Scholar

See also Bill Lancaster, Radicalism, Co-operation and Socialism: Leicester Working-Class Politics, 1860-1906, Leicester, University of Leicester Press, 1987, for conflicts between local and national co-operative organisations in Leicester. Radicalism, Co-operation and Socialism: Leicester Working-Class Politics, 1860-1906 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

For an account of the development of Plymouth Co-operative Society see R. Briscoe, Centenary History: A Hundred Years of Co-operation in Plymouth, Manchester, Co-operative Press, 1960. Google Scholar

For example, Lancaster suggests that co-operation in Leicester was associated with the skilled, highly independent artisans of the town's small workshops: Lancaster, Radicalism, Co-operation and Socialism; Purvis makes a link between successful co-operative societies and large workplaces with high numbers of skilled workers (Purvis, ‘The Development of Co-operative Retailing’, pp. 316, 327). Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

We know for example of a retail co-operative society formed by dockyard shipwrights at Deptford, Woolwich and Chatham in the 1750s; a co-operative flour mill at Portsmouth in 1814, and a Union Dock Mill Society at Plymouth in 1817. See Philip MacDougall, ‘The Changing Nature of the Dockyard Dispute, 1790-1840’, in Kenneth Lunn and Ann Day (eds), History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards, London, Mansell, 1999, pp. 55-7, and n. 56. History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards 55 7 Google Scholar

N. Casey, ‘An Early Organisational Hegemony: Methods of Social Control in a Victorian Dockyard’, Social Science Information, 23, 1984, p. 692; Roger Morriss, ‘Government and Continuity: The Changing Context of Labour Relations, 1770-1830’, in Lunn and Day (eds), History of Work and Labour Relations, p. 32; Mavis Waters, ‘A Social History of Dockyard Workers at Chatham, Kent, 1860-1914’, PhD, University of Essex, 1979, pp. 134-7. An Early Organisational Hegemony: Methods of Social Control in a Victorian Dockyard Social Science Information 23 692 Google Scholar

Peter Galliver, ‘Trade Unionism in Portsmouth Dockyard, 1880-1914: Change and Continuity’, in Lunn and Day (eds), History of Work and Labour Relations, p. 102; Waters, ‘A Social History of Dockyard Workers’, p. 137; Hilson, ‘Working-Class Politics in Plymouth’, p. 100. Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

See M. Dawson, ‘Liberalism in Devon and Cornwall, 1910-1931: "the Old-time Religion"’, Historical Journal, 38, 1995, pp. 425-37. Liberalism in Devon and Cornwall, 1910-1931: "the Old-time Religion" Historical Journal 38 425 37 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Benson and Shaw, The Evolution of Retail Systems. Google Scholar

Geoffrey Crossick, ‘Shopkeepers and the State in Britain, 1870-1914’, in G. Crossick and H.-G. Haupt (eds), Shopkeepers and Master Artisans in Nineteenth Century Europe, London, Methuen, 1984. Christopher Hosgood, ‘The "Pigmies of Commerce" and the Working-class Community: Small Shopkeepers in England, 1870-1914’, Journal of Social History, 22, 1989, pp. 439-60. Hornsby, ‘Co-operation in Crisis’. Shopkeepers and Master Artisans in Nineteenth Century Europe Google Scholar

Michael Winstanley, The Shopkeeper's World, 1830-1914, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1983, pp. 75, 88. The Shopkeeper's World, 1830-1914 75 Google Scholar

Plymouth Co-operative Record (hereafter Record), March 1898, p. 30, June 1898, p. 66. Google Scholar

‘An ugly run on the Society's resources has been going on for a long time, both in the matter of sales and shares withdrawals’, it was claimed (Tradesman and Shopkeeper, 25 February 1905, quoted in Western Morning News, 4 April 1906). Google Scholar

Western Morning News, 4 April 1906. Google Scholar

According to Gurney, the ruling in favour of Plymouth Co-operative Society effectively marked the end of conflict between the independent retailers and the co-operative movement (Gurney, Co-operative Culture, p. 201). Google Scholar

As a senior member of the Plymouth society wrote, ‘The establishment of a Co-operative Commonwealth, as against the vicious system which obtains today, a system of grab and caste, which the private traders are so anxious to maintain — … will be the crowning glory of our efforts’ (Record, August 1904, p. 92). Google Scholar

Winstanley, The Shopkeeper's World; C. P. Hosgood, ‘"A Brave and Daring Folk?": Shopkeepers and Associational Life in Victorian and Edwardian England’, Journal of Social History, 26, 1992, pp. 285-308. Google Scholar

Record, December 1900, pp. 132-3. Google Scholar

The 1896 elections for example produced three new councillors who were also co-operators, as was pointed out at the Co-operative Education Committee's debate on political representation during that year (Record, November 1896, p. 80). Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Record, December 1900, p. 133. Google Scholar

Half-yearly education meeting, Record, April 1903, p. 206. Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

South Western Labour Journal, September 1903. Google Scholar

Report on CWS quarterly meeting, Record, February 1909, p. 161. Google Scholar

For a discussion of the profiteering issue see J. S. Boswell and B. R. Johns, ‘Patriots or Profiteers? British Businessmen and the First World War’, Journal of European Economic History, 11, 1982, pp. 423-5; also Bernard Waites, A Class Society at War: England 1914-1918, Leamington Spa, Berg, 1987, p. 68. Patriots or Profiteers? British Businessmen and the First World War Journal of European Economic History 11 423 5 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Quarterly meeting, 4 January 1916, Record, January 1916, p. 21. Google Scholar

Counsel restated the argument that co-operative societies made surpluses, not profits: ‘The society was in fact a distributing agency which returned to its members, by what it chose to call dividend, the difference between the price paid by the members at the time of purchase, and what was actually found to be the actual cost of the article, plus the cost of distribution, originally paid by the society’ (Record, January 1917, p. 17). Google Scholar

The main co-operative history textbook points out the anomalies of taxing co-operative societies for their profits: ‘If co-operative societies were to concede that their surpluses were properly subject to EPD, they would acknowledge that these surpluses were profits. This would not only open the gate to further fiscal impositions, but, more important, deny the validity of the co-operative system as an embodiment of the co-operative ideal of trade devoid of profit-making’ (Bonner, British Co-operation, p. 142). Google Scholar

Quarterly meeting report, Record, January 1916, p. 20. Google Scholar

Mr Prince, of the management committee, speaking at the society's monthly meeting in March 1916: ‘The time has arrived when the leaders of our movement will have to justify themselves over this business. The suspicion that the working classes generally have of their chosen leaders, in my opinion, is justified by the way in which those leaders, having climbed into positions of power, throw over their democratic principles and ideas … The leaders of our co-operative democracy, those who should watch our interests, should have been more alert, and since they have failed us, we must set up quicker and better machinery’ (Record, March 1916, pp. 99-101). Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Quarterly meeting of members, December 1915, Record, January 1916. Google Scholar

One historian of wartime food supply suggests that the price index for basic foodstuffs measured 168 in October 1916, where July 1914 = 100. Peter Dewey, ‘Nutrition and Living Standards in Wartime Britain’, in Richard Wall and Jay Winter (eds), The Upheaval of War: Family, Work and Welfare in Europe, 1914-1918, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 201. The Upheaval of War: Family, Work and Welfare in Europe, 1914-1918 201 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Record, March 1917, pp. 29-30. Google Scholar

‘Even the potato has become an argument for Co-operation’, commented the Record's editor in April 1917, as it was announced that 1,174 members had joined the society the previous month. ‘Not to be a Co-operator is to be a quite abnormal person, a notorious exception to the general rule. In a certain sense we already are the Town’ (Record, April 1917, p. 93). Google Scholar

Co-operator, 7 April 1917, 21 April 1917. ‘How many Plymothians realise to what an extent our Society has protected them from local profiteers during recent months? If there had been no Co-operative Society in Plymouth, it is certain that the local cost of living would have been much higher than it is today … Here in Plymouth, our General Committee can boast that the Society has saved its members no less than sixty-one thousand pounds by keeping down the price of bread. And all persons who eat bread in Plymouth to-day, ought to know that the Society has again stopped the profiteers from taking another slice off the loaf (Record, April 1917, p. 94). Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Co-operator, passim, September 1917, 5 October 1917; Record, September 1917. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 6 October 1917. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 13 October 1917, 17 November 1917. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 19 January 1918. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 23 February 1918. Google Scholar

Record, January 1916. Google Scholar

‘A new attack upon our funds will work a miracle within the Co-operative Movement like that which the Osborne Judgement worked in Trade Unionism’, according to an editorial in the Record, August 1916. Also Co-operator, 17 February 1917. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 3 February 1917. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 3 February 1917. Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

J. J. Moses speech to demo, Co-operator, 6 October 1917. Google Scholar

Record, October 1917. Google Scholar

Record, March 1916, pp. 99-101. T. W. Mercer, speaking at the quarterly meeting of members in December 1915, expressed similar views: ‘The action on the part of the Government is the outcome of agitation commenced and carried on by our competitors. No desire for justice prompted that agitation. It is an agitation entirely sprung from meanness and malice, and it is time for us to protest’ (Record, January 1916). Google Scholar

Editorial, Record, December 1917. Google Scholar

Co-operator, 10 November 1917. Capitalisation in the original. Google Scholar

Record, May 1917. Google Scholar

‘Whether parliamentary representation is as powerful a weapon as some folks think, many co-operators may doubt. The vote is not the only weapon in the Labour armoury, and a co-operative community sufficiently strong to send its own representative to Parliament would be strong enough to take other action if it so willed’ (Mercer, editorial, Record, March 1916). In a further piece a few months later he wrote that, ‘Political action has been much discredited of late, and it may be that organised labour can win its greatest victories in the industrial field through co-operative production and distribution’ (Record, May 1916). Google Scholar

Co-operator, 28 April 1917. Google Scholar

Record, December 1917, p. 313. Google Scholar

Record, November 1917, pp. 280-1. Google Scholar

Mercer, in a lecture to the Society, stated that, ‘Affiliation with the national Labour Party, so ardently desired by enthusiasts who hoped to bring about a fusion of forces, was not yet desirable, for the record of that Party was not encouraging, nor did the spectacle of Mr John Hodge as the first Minister for Labour inspire confidence’ (Record, April 1917, p. 116). Google Scholar

Another member, ‘enquired if the Association would embrace all Labour bodies, including the section represented by men of the Philip Snowden and Ramsay MacDonald type. If so, he would have nothing whatever to do with it in any shape of form’ (Report of special meetings to discuss LCRA held during week of 4 June 1917, Record, June 1917, pp. 166-8). Google Scholar

Co-operator, 7 July 1917. Google Scholar

Record, December 1917, p. 313; Co-operator, 15 December 1917. Google Scholar

Editorial, Record, July 1917. Google Scholar

Gillian Scott, ‘"The Working-class Women's Most Active and Democratic Movement": The Women's Co-operative Guild from 1883 to 1950’, DPhil, University of Sussex, 1988, pp. 67-70; see examples in Margaret Llewellyn Davies, Life As We Have Known It, by Co-operative Working Women, London, Virago, 1977, first published 1931. Google Scholar

Record, May 1916, p. 159. Google Scholar

Record, April 1916, p. 130. Google Scholar

See Karen Hunt, ‘Negotiating the Boundaries of the Domestic: British Socialist Women and the Politics of Consumption’, Women's History Review, 9, 2000, pp. 389-410. Negotiating the Boundaries of the Domestic: British Socialist Women and the Politics of Consumption Women's History Review 9 389 410 Google Scholar

Record, January 1916, p. 20; Record, March 1916, p. 93. Google Scholar

Editorial, Record, February 1917, p. 30. Google Scholar

See Gerard DeGroot, Blighty: British Society in the Era of the Great War, London, Longman, 1996. For the opposite view see A. Marwick, The Deluge: British Society and the First World War, London, Bodley Head, 1965. Blighty: British Society in the Era of the Great War Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

Gurney, Co-operative Culture, p. 53. Google Scholar

Record, March 1916, p. 101. Google Scholar

Record, April 1917, p. 116. Google Scholar

 Google Scholar

 Google Scholar