end in view, namely, the elimination of private trading, might indeed be the same, but the means adopted would be widely different. In either case the ratepayer and consumer would suffer from the creation of an uneconomic monopoly. The Gilbertian situation in which the Labour Party and the Cooperative Alliance find themselves in this connexion is aptly hit off by Punch in a cartoon (June 6) where two Socialists tied back to back are addressing the public from the top of a tub labelled 'SOCIALISM':

Ist SOCIALIST (politician).- Vote for Municipal Trading.'

2nd SOCIALIST (Co-op. trader).-' Down with Municipal Trading and all monopolies-except mine! '

Mr. Davis, a director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, had no hesitation in supporting the view that the co-operative movement, rather than the plans of any political party for nationalisation, municipalisation, or State purchase, was the proper machinery for satisfying the requirements of the people in these commodities.

The recommendations of the report were adopted unanimously. The discussion on the report of the 'Joint Propaganda and Trade Committee' disclosed the fact that the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the Co-operative Retail Societies are in opposing camps on the question of a change of policy which would allow the Co-operative Wholesale Society to open new centres of cooperative retail trading, instead of leaving this extension of co-operative activity in the hands of local societies.

A resolution was brought forward by Mr. Varley, chairman of the Propaganda Committee, suggesting that the time is now opportune for the Co-operative Wholesale Society to undertake retail trade in areas where there are not sufficient facilities for the same, and this meeting requests the Co-operative Wholesale Society to take steps to this end in consultation with the Cooperative Union' (of retail societies). Mr. Varley argued that the Co-operative Wholesale Society could undoubtedly open branches in districts where it would be impossible for mere beginners in co-operation, such as a newly-formed society of inexperienced enthusiasts, to meet multiple-shop methods and develop successfully in these days of more attractive shops, arcades, and big stores it was impossible to start a new business without the capital necessary to furnish similar conditions of trading.

Mr. Wilkinson, of Compstall, which is a residential suburb of Manchester, in supporting the resolution, warned co-operators that in such areas as he came from they would lose their heritage and their right to supply the people's food unless they used all the resources of the movement to initiate developments in opposition

to the great multiple-shop businesses spreading from the cities to the villages.

The intrusion of the Co-operative Wholesale Society into the province of the local retail societies was warmly opposed by Mr. Joyce, a retail store manager at Kettering, who plainly intimated to the Co-operative Wholesale Society that it should mind its own business. Mr. Joyce's plan for meeting the situation was amalgamation of the smaller retail societies with larger ones in the big towns.

Mr. N. S. Beaton, who is a Scottish Wholesale Society director (the Scottish Wholesale Society is independent of the Co-operative Wholesale Society), was not in favour of the resolution, but, on the contrary, strongly supported Mr. Joyce's view that the solution of the problem was in the extension of the larger retail societies. You cannot cut co-operation off from its roots among the people,' he said. 'Propaganda should start on the doorstep of the worker, not in the opening of a shop with which he has nothing to do until you ask him to come and spend his wages there.'

Others spoke both for and against the resolution, and Mr. Varley, replying to the discussion, stated that in Cornwall and Devon the Co-operative Wholesale Society had been obliged to take control of eighteen or nineteen village societies which had got into difficulties.

It must be admitted that the case instanced by Mr. Varley forms a strong argument in favour of his policy, by exposing the inability of such a financially strong and prosperous retail organisation as the Plymouth society to extend its operations sufficiently to cover the Devon villages, where the local societies have failed to make good. The explanation lies probably in a disinclination on the part of prosperous retail societies in large towns to risk the dividends of their members in what may prove to be unprofitable expenditure in less closely populated areas. The Co-operative Wholesale Society, on the other hand, with its vast resources, is well able to undertake competition with the capitalist multiple shop, and from the purely business point of view alone is justified in trying to secure approval for the policy indicated in the resolution; and it may be added that a network of Co-operative Wholesale Society stores all over the country controlled by a powerful central organisation in political alliance with the Labour Party offers an unrivalled field for the employment of the enormous reserve forces' at the disposal of the co-operative movement, which Mr. Barnes said 'it could set in motion at need for political purposes through its economic organisation.'

Mr. Barnes may be said to represent politics, Mr. Varley (the mover of the resolution) to represent 'big business,' and Mr.

Beaton (Scottish Wholesale director) to represent pure cooperation.

The voting by show of hands on Mr. Varley's resolution showed an evenly divided house; the tellers were accordingly put on, with the result that the resolution was carried by 2267 votes against 2033-majority 234.

On the second day of Congress a vigorous denunciation of the Government's policy of safeguarding industries and of its corrupting influence on persons engaged in the productive branches of co-operative industry was made by Mr. A. V. Alexander, M.P., in submitting the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The report did not excite anything like the interest which was evinced in the debate on Joint Propaganda and Trade Committee's report, and was adopted-one might say 'by acquiescence.' One might hazard the opinion that more co-operators have been directly and indirectly benefited by the Government's safeguarding measures than Mr. Alexander would have had the meeting believe. But the adoption of the report shows that the political machinery of the co-operative movement will be employed at the General Election to fight protective measures in whatever guise they may appear on Conservative platforms.

Among other items of interest may be noted the president's remarks on the extraordinary growth of credit trading during the last three years,' which he said was another startling tendency demanding close examination. Eleven years ago the total amount outstanding for goods supplied on credit was less than 1,500,000l.; at the end of 1926 it was over 4,000,000l., and the figure for 1927 could not be much less than 5,000,000l., and nearly 1,000,000l. was owing by members on hire purchase and club systems.'

The president had previously drawn attention to 'the apathy of the great majority of our five million members, as reflected in their indifference to the welfare of their own society '-an apathy indicated by the small minorities who voted at elections, the majority never voting at all.

This indifference and apathy is of course not peculiar to the co-operative societies, but some experience of co-operators and their societies leads one to believe that the predominance of Socialist and even Communist activity in many societies is responsible for the abstention of a large proportion of members from the local meetings. 'Oh yes, I deal at the shop, but I don't want to get mixed up with that Socialist crowd at the meetings,' is the attitude of a large proportion of the five million' to which the president mournfully referred.

The president also deplored our failure to secure an increasing proportion of the trade of all members of our societies.' This again VOL. CIV-No. 617

may be due in part to a similar cause: many of the co-operative societies have taken on such a pronounced political bias of a nature so repugnant to a considerable section of the membership that many of the members avoid dealing with the co-operative shop except in cases where the financial advantage is too obvious to be ignored.

After an unusually interesting session one is left with the impression that the co-operative movement tends to become more closely identified with political Socialism, and to be dominated by the party machine in the interests of the politician rather than of the co-operator; that this tendency may have the brake applied by a well-organised resistance to anything in the shape of a political levy without the option of 'contracting out'; and that it is likely to receive a substantial check which may result in severing the alliance between the Co-operative Party and the Labour Party, if and when the issue of granting trading facilities to municipalities under a Labour Government comes into open conflict with the policy of the co-operative movement. The desire to share the sweets of office and to wield political power may overrule the ' die-hards' of pure co-operation; but if such a thing should happen, the co-operative movement, which has grown from its infancy in 1844 to the stature of its full manhood in 1928, and established itself firmly as a beneficent factor in the home lives of the working classes, would lose its prestige and forfeit the affections and confidence of the people whose support has helped to build up an organisation of which every co-operator may well be proud.

F. G. STONE.

THE NATIVE QUESTION IN SOUTH AFRICA

HISTORICAL SURVEY

THE Native Question in South Africa may be said to have arisen in the latter half of the eighteenth century, when the advance guard of European civilisation came into contact with the Bantu races who were pushing eastwards in search of new pasturage. The first clash came in what is to-day known as the Eastern Province.

Initially the question was largely one of boundaries. The moribund Dutch East India Company administration contented itself with the definition of the boundary dividing European and Bantu, and this policy was followed by the British Government until the middle of the last century, when it was abandoned as impracticable. Then, as now, the native question was for the most part the economic question of land. Then, as now, this was only imperfectly realised by Europeans. The first Kaffir War took place in 1779, to be followed, at more or less regular intervals, by eight more, each more intense than the last; and as the pressure of economic conditions increased land prices rose steadily, and the land question also increased in intensity. Various attempts were made rigidly to separate white and black by the definition and control of the boundary, but these efforts were all unsuccessful because the Bantu recognised no boundary, and because the military establishment required for effective control was far beyond the resources of the young colony. This treaty system, adopted with a fair measure of success in India, was a complete failure along the Kei and Fish Rivers.

British policy at this time was largely controlled by a small and effective public opinion which had been born out of the Philanthropic and Anti-Slave Movements, and whose source of inspiration was the London Mission Society. Rousseau's' noble savage was a common phrase, and was the despair of the frontier farmer at the Cape. Effective public opinion in Great Britain was all on the side of the treaty system, because that system had the appearance of being just in that it left the native to himself; it had the strong additional advantage of being a cheap policy.