1920.] Progress ok Agricultural Co-operation. 



429 



engaged in the work of starting agricultural co-operative societies 

 in every village and district in which the local farmers could be 

 induced to attempt combined trading on a co-operative basis. 

 Its attitude towards these societies when formed was naturally 

 somewhat paternal, and, as the Report of the Society for 1917- 

 191vS candidly declared, the government of the Agricultural 

 Organisation Society was bureaucratic, with a lack of intimate 

 contact between the societies and the central governing body, 

 which automatically increased as the movement itself developed. 

 With the limited resources at its disposal the Society could not 

 undertake a general propaganda throughout the countrv, nor 

 was it in a position effectively to co-ordinate the organisation 

 and development of societies, and its efforts were mainly confined 

 to following up inquiries received from localities where some 

 person was already interested in agricultural co-operation. 



The Present Policy. — In 1917 the Governing Body under the 

 Chairmanship of Mr. Leslie Scott, K.C., M.P., resolved to divest 

 the Society of its paternal character and to democratise it fully 

 so that it might become the servant rather than the patron of 

 the affiliated societies. The character of the Governing Body 

 itself was changed by the substitution of the elective principle 

 for that of nomination. Fifteen branch committees were set up 

 in the provinces, composed of representatives of the local 

 societies, and charged with the supervision of local administra- 

 tion. The system of referring questions of policy and principle 

 to conferences of societies was developed, with the result that 

 to-day the affiliated societies through the length and breadth of 

 the countrv are in a position not only to determine the composi- 

 tion of the Governing Body, but also to decide for themselves the 

 big questions of pohcy which arise from time to time. 



The democratisation of the movement was naturally and 

 rightly followed by a drastic reorganisation of its machinery. 

 The movement itself at that stage was obviously not in a position 

 to provide the necessary funds to meet the expense of the 

 organisation required, but fortunately the Government found, 

 themselves able to adopt the strong recommendations made in 

 1917 by the Agricultural Reconstruction Committee over which 

 Lord Selborne presided, and to provide considerablv increased 

 grants from the Development Fund for the promotion of agri- 

 cultural co-operation. The Society, therefore, when the 

 Armistice was signed, found itself well equipped to meet the 

 anticipated demands from the agricultural comnumity for a big 



