34 THE FUTURE OF OUR AGRICULTURE. 



conjure with at the time, with Government favours showered 

 upon it everywhere. Presidents of Provinces were instructed 

 to befriend it at all points ; and so were Chambers of Agri- 

 culture, the leading men of which — many of them extremely 

 able — became also the leading men of the Union in its 

 various local sections. Co-operation, so it was plausibly 

 urged, to succeed, " must have money," though it had 

 done pretty well thus far upon its own resources. Well, 

 money it should have ! The Prussian Government forth- 

 with, in 1895, started the State endowed Central Bank for 

 Co-operative Societies (which, by the way, nets its profits 

 out of business less with co-operative than with non-co- 

 operative bodies) , liberally endowed — the endowment now 

 stands at £3,750,000, according, as the Times puts it, to 

 " the pre-war value of the mark." That Bank would 

 open credits freely. In the movement nothing was spoken 

 of but benevolent intentions cherished by a paternally 

 interested Government. However, speaking — it may be 

 unadvisedly — on a public occasion, its President, Dr. 

 Heiligenstadt, has frankly explained that the motive which 

 led to the formation of that Bank was " to give an official 

 head " to the Co-operative Movement, which, without such 

 head, it was argued, might " mean danger to the com- 

 munity." Here is the old official belief in the " limited 

 understanding of subjects " and in the Government being 

 the sole qualified leader for " movements," which private 

 persons must not presume to set their hand to ! However, 

 there was the money, and German agriculturists — especially 

 junkers, whose heart beat wholly in sympathy with official 

 guidance, if they could only get the money — had not yet 

 learnt the truth which Sterne has taught that " all is not 

 gain that is got into the purse." The Government laid out 

 money " benevolently " in other ways. Thus, to state 

 only one instance, it lavished £250,000 on an altogether ill- 

 advised project to establish " co-operative " elevators. 

 The " elevators " came to grief, of course, and the money 

 was lost — while other, truly co-operative, elevators estab- 

 lished on sounder though humbler lines, did well and came 

 to render extremely useful service. Befriended by the 



