AGRICULTURE AND POLITICS IN IRELAND.
[To rag EDITOR OF TILE "Srsorarox."] SIR,—In a leading article in your last issue, upon Agriculture and Politics in Ireland, you deal with the controversy pro- voked by the continued withholding from Ireland under political pressure of the grant recommended by the Develop- ment Commissioners, and already paid in England and Scotland, towards aiding in this work the three Agricultural Organization Societies of the United Kingdom. Whilst expressing my personal gratification with your general conclusion that the grant should also be conceded to Ireland, you will, I trust, permit me to dissent from your main reasons for favouring the concession. You hold that the case for the Irish Society is to be judged less on its merits than on its right to profit by certain provisions of the Development Fund and Road Improvement Act, with which, on principle, you disagree ; and, furthermore, I desire to correct the impression conveyed by your statement that the Irish traders "are all taxpayers, and may very fairly complain that it is unjust that part of their money should be used to subsidize their rivals."
The Agricultural Co-operators of Ireland, for whom I speak with some authority, will be surprised to find so warm a friend as the Spectator assuming that, notwithstanding their vaunted belief in the theories of self-reliance, they have joined in the demoralizing scramble "for public money distributed in the way of largesse " ; nor will the leaders of the movement having for its threefold object the reconstruction of rural Ireland on the lines of "better farming, better living, and better business" feel other than surprise at being classed with those who "arc so fond of talking vaguely about assisting agriculture . . . with the resources of the State." May I say that, so far as I am aware, Irish agricultural reformers have indulged in no such vague talk ; on the contrary, by talk just the opposite of that they have, for three-and-twenty years of unremitting toil, successfully commended their principle of agricultural development to many thousands of their fellow countrymen ? Upon the educational work necessary to spread these prin- ciples among the Irish farming community over £100,000 voluntarily contributed has been expended ; whilst the sum derived from public sources and similarly expended has been less than one-third of that sum. To this work, and this expen- diture upon it., we owe, first, the beginnings of a rural economy in Ireland of no small moment to the British tax-
payers ; secondly, the beginning of a like revolution in England, Wales, and Scotland; and, thirdly, the recognition by the present Government that these voluntary efforts are of suffi- cient importance to the national wellbeing to justify the expenditure of public funds on "the organization of co- operation" as a means of "aiding and assisting agriculture." The passage I have quoted from your leading article assumes or implies that the assisting subsidy is given, or may be given, not to the propagandist associations only, but to the trading bodies created by them. May I say by way of replying to this assumption that in course of my address given last week in Dublin to the annual meeting of Delegates from the Agri- cultural Co-operative Societies in Ireland, the following words gained the cordial approval of those present ?—
" Our opponents represent us as seeking for Irish farmers an unfair advantage, by the aid of public money, over individuals and companies doing the flame business. You know, but the public does not know, that not one penny of the Society's money has ever been spent, or ever could be spent, either in doing business for profit, or, after the manner of the American Trust, at a loss, in order to eliminate trade competitors. All that we do is to teach groups of farmers how, by intelligent combination, they may do their business more efficiently and economically ; and even this purely educational work has always been, and I trust always will be, financed mainly out of funds voluntarily contributed."
I trust, Sir, you will accept this statement as being true not only of the agricultural co-operation in Ireland, but also of the sister movements in England, Wales, and Scotland. There are no workers in the United Kingdom who more genuinely share your repugnance to undue demands upon State assistance within the province of voluntary effort than do the three vigorous and growing associations which seek to co-operate with the Development Commissioners and with the Agricultural Departments in the great and necessary work of bringing people back to the land and establishing those already settled there.
This task involves increasing the yield while decreasing the cost of farming operations, the supply of fresh working capital in response to the security created by mutual credit, the cheapening of distribution by co-operative marketing, and, lastly, the utilization for higher social purposes of the business organization upon which, we have learned, the entire scheme depends for its success.
To those actively engaged in this work—especially to anyone who, like myself, has had practical experience of its governmental as well as of the voluntary side—there is no apparent reason why "the organization of co-operation" in rural communities should not be assisted out of public funds, for exactly the same reasons which justify aid to commercial courses in technical schools, where traders are taught how to organize their business. To elaborate the analogy would take too much of your space. I will only mention that the approximation is nearest when in the urban technical schools people are taught the mysteries of combination under the Joint Stock Acts, and in rural communities the principles and working details of agricultural co-operation are taught under the Industrial and Provident Societies and Friendly Societies Acts. 1 may add that all experience shows that the latter type of education cannot be given effectively otherwise than through a voluntary association.
I apologise for such a trespass upon your space ; but it would be deplorable that you and your readers should be left under the misunderstanding which has temporarily deprived the pioneers of the new scheme of rural progress, now accepted throughout the English-speaking world, of the very moderate assistance to which its work and sacrifice for nearly a quarter
of a century surely entitle it.—I am, Sir, &e.,
[We are delighted to gather from Sir Horace Plunkett's letter that the Irish Co-operators show so excellent a spirit and recognize the advantages of independence and the dangers of State help. We admit that accepting help for education is quite different from accepting it for trading purposes. We regret if we have in any way misrepresented the attitude of Sir Horace Plunkett's society. At the same time we must repeat
our disbelief in the doctrine on which the Development Grant is based.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
