perfect in its way, and considerable hardship was caused to individual Co-operators by it; while the boycott had a lasting effect in another direction, for it was the direct cause of the large proportion of householders, in the places throughout Scotland where the boycott raged most fiercely, which became represented amongst the shareholders of the societies by the wives of the householders instead of by the householders themselves. While it lasted the boycott was not without its humorous incidents. If the traders had their system of espionage, so also had the Co-operative Defence Association, and there was not a meeting of the Traders’ Association held, however great the precautions which might be taken to ensure absolute secrecy, of which a practically _verbatim_ report of the proceedings was not in the hands of the secretary of the Co-operative Defence Committee next morning. One of the laughable incidents concerned one such meeting, a full report of which was published by the Co-operators. This was followed by a visit from an irate traders’ official, who demanded to know the source from which the report had come. It is hardly necessary to state that he went away without the information asked for, and to this day it is probable that the source of the information is known to less than half a dozen people, not one of whom had anything to do with the traders’ organisation. But if the boycott was the cause of hardship to individuals here and there, it brought grist in a very real sense to the Co-operative mill in other directions. Already, in this chapter, it has been pointed out that it was a two-edged weapon, and while Co-operative societies did not cease to trade with private manufacturers who did not adopt the boycott, they were kept well informed of those manufacturers who did. It was found that while some manufacturers had no wish to employ Co-operative labour they were keenly desirous of retaining Co-operative custom, and it came as an unpleasant surprise to some of them to find that Co-operative societies objected to the dismissal of employees because of their Co-operative connection, and that they refused to trade with manufacturers who adopted such tactics. It is said that one Glasgow firm lost Co-operative trade at this time worth £20,000 a year and never regained it.