io THE PLACE OF RURAL ECONOMY 



idea seemed to prevail that if the money was not spent 

 its distribution would be discontinued. Moreover, the 

 Treasury made a point of emphasizing the fact that 

 local authorities must not count on a continuance of 

 the grant. Then again, the Government auditors 

 threatened to surcharge expenditure on experiments, 

 as contrasted with demonstrations, and this set every 

 one asking where the one ended and the other began. 

 There was one way in which the terminological diffi- 

 culty could be avoided, namely, by making an allocation 

 of funds to a local institution, in which case the Govern- 

 ment auditor did not consider that he need inquire into 

 the details of the expenditure. After two or three 

 years had passed without any of the dire results 

 occurring that had been threatened, confidence became 

 established, and the County Councils set themselves 

 to elaborate permanent schemes. 



While those who had to administer the Technical 

 Education funds would be the first to admit that the 

 early years of the movement witnessed not a few 

 mistakes, it must, I think, be allowed that most of 

 the County Councils have long since settled down to 

 carry through schemes of sound educational utility. 

 Of the sixty-one County Councils of England and 

 Wales (excluding London), three do nothing whatso- 

 ever for agricultural education, fifteen depend entirely 

 upon their county staffs, two have established inde- 

 pendent Agricultural Schools, while forty-one are 

 directly associated with Universities, or University 

 Colleges, or with Agricultural Colleges equipped for 

 giving instruction up to a University College standard, 

 or nearly so. Of the Universities of England and 

 Wales, full courses of instruction are provided by 

 Durham, Leeds, Cambridge, London (through the 



