CONCLUSION 34] 



tration of the Act was committed — power to " promote the formation 

 or extension of, and, subject to the provisions of this section, to 

 assist societies on a co-operative basis having for their objects the 

 provision or the proper working of small holdings or allotments, 

 whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, 

 credit banking or insurance, or otherwise." That provision was 

 much debated in Grand Committee — criticism being pointed, from 

 one quarter, not at the power given, but at the " assistance " pro- 

 mised to societies formed "on a co-operative basis " — which 

 " assistance," so it was apprehended (and I must confess that I shared 

 that apprehension), might easily be abused in the sense of ill-advised 

 generosity. Mr. Harcourt — as he then still was — being in charge of 

 the measure, silenced these objections by reference to an accepted 

 authority, which had approved. In the place of the too lavish 

 assistance dreaded — which under the mask of kindness might have 

 spoilt the " co-operation " resorted to — there has been no " assist- 

 ance " at all — not even encouragement or approval. The main 

 action suggested under the clause of the Act referred to was that of 

 providing credit by means of co-operation. And towards that end 

 not only has absolutely nothing been done under the Act — least of 

 all by county councils — but indeed the action actually prescribed by 

 the Act has been directly hindered and obstructed by the Govern- 

 ment acting through the Board of Agriculture. Lord Lincolnshire — 

 or Lord Carrington, as he then still was — in 1910 unmistakably 

 desired really to take action in the sense suggested, as did also his 

 second in command, Sir Thomas Elliott, who consulted me as to 

 practical steps to be taken. Lord Carrington, after the triumphant 

 passing of the " Thrift and Credit Societies Bill " in the House of 

 Lords, begged me to submit a memorandum on the action desirable 

 for carrying the provisions of that Bill into execution. I drew up 

 such a memorandum, which was acknowledged and was to have been 

 discussed — when the new election came about stopping all progress. 

 But Lord Lincolnshire and Sir Thomas Elliott subsequently left the 

 Board of Agriculture. And their successors appear to have thought 

 no more about the matter, emphatic as the House of Lords had been 

 in its approval. In any case they took no steps to turn Lord Ilar- 

 court's advisedly drafted clause to account. Certainly, as Mr. F. ES. 

 Green, a man who knows our peasantry well, and has kept a very 

 watchful eye upon goings on in the matter of land settlement, 

 remarks in his " A History of the English Agricultural Labourer/' 

 "this laudable provision, which would have been of immense value to 

 small holders who lacked capital, has never been carried out by any 



