In two directions the boycott benefited Co-operative production, therefore. It turned the attention of those at the head of the movement to the need of being as far as possible independent of private manufacturers for supplies, and thus it did much to stimulate Co-operative manufactures and to hasten entry into new spheres of work. On the other hand, the operation of the boycott, where manufacturers refused to supply goods which were already being produced Co-operatively, increased the demand for the Co-operative manufactures; while the process of retaliation mentioned above also stimulated this demand. In both of those directions, the Baking Society was a gainer. One or two societies in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, which hitherto had always stood aloof from the Federation and had done very little trade with it, now approached it for supplies; while a rapidly growing city society, whose members had consistently refused to give the Federation the whole of their bread trade, were now prepared to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that the capacity of the bakery was fully taxed, an endeavour was made by the committee to supply the wants of those societies who had brought home to them in this manner the value of federation in the day of adversity. A big trade in biscuits had also been done hitherto with Co-operative societies by the biscuit manufacturers of Glasgow, but the boycott put an end to that trade, and in this direction also the Bakery gained very considerably. It may be asserted with confidence, therefore, that not only did the traders’ organisation fail to achieve the object they had in view—the destruction of the Co-operative movement in Scotland, and especially in Glasgow and the West—but their campaign had exactly the opposite effect, and ended by leaving the Co-operative movement stronger in membership, stronger in trade and capital, and with a membership more closely knit together than it would have been but for the agitation and the boycott.