Nationalist hostility to the I.A.O.S. has not been confined to words.
When the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill was passing through
the House of Commons, Mr. Dillon endeavoured to secure an undertaking
from me that public moneys should not be employed to subsidise the work
of the Society. I naturally refused to give any such undertaking.[73] I
had followed the efforts of the Society very closely; I was deeply
impressed with the value of the results which it had accomplished; but
its field of activity was limited by the narrowness of its resources. In
my opinion, a subsidy to the Society from the Endowment Fund of the
Department would be a useful and proper application of public money. At
the same time I pointed out that if the Agricultural Board, which in the
main represented the popularly-elected local authorities, thought
differently, they had a power of veto and could use it in this case.
Sir Horace Plunkett held the position of Vice-President of the
Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction from 1899 to 1907,
and during his tenure of office, as I had always expected and intended,
there was close co-operation between the Department and the I.A.O.S.
During that period a sum amounting in all to less than £30,000 was paid
by the Department to the I.A.O.S., of which more than half was for
technical instruction, while the balance represented contributions to
the work of co-operative organisation.[74]
When Sir H. Plunkett was replaced by Mr. T. W. Russell, the pressure of
the Irish Parliamentary Party immediately began to make itself felt. The
new vice-president informed the Council of Agriculture that he had made
up his mind to withdraw the subsidy, but he undertook to continue a
diminishing grant for three years, £3000 for the first year, £2000 for
the second, and £1000 for the third. The I.A.O.S. were not seriously
opposed to the gradual withdrawal of the subsidy, the loss of which they
hoped to be able to cover in course of time by increased voluntary
subscriptions.
The opposition of the Nationalist Party was, however, not yet
exhausted. In the _Freeman's Journal _of January 21, 1908, there
appeared a letter from Mr. John Redmond enclosing a copy of a letter
from Mr. T. W. Rolleston to a correspondent at St. Louis. Mr. Rolleston
accompanied his letter with a copy of a speech by Sir Horace Plunkett.
In his letter he remarked plainly upon the antagonism displayed by the
Irish Nationalists to the co-operative movement. Although Sir Horace
Plunkett declared that he had nothing whatever to do with the letter,
the Irish Parliamentarians professed to find in it abundant proof of an
intention to destroy Nationalism. "That correspondence," said Mr. T. W.
Russell,"[75] compelled me to take action. Mr. John Redmond made it
imperative upon me by his letter--I mean a public letter to the
Press--and as so much was involved, I took the precaution of convening a
special meeting of the Agricultural Board." The Board decided that the
subsidy should be withdrawn at the end of the year 1908.
The last act in this drama of hostility to Sir Horace Plunkett and all
his works is still in the course of being played. Under the provisions
of the Development Fund Act of 1909, the Development Commissioners were
empowered to make advances for the organisation of co-operation, either
"to a Government Department or through a Government Department to a
voluntary association not trading for profit." During the Report stage
of the Development Fund Bill, Mr. Dillon tried to get a ruling from the
Solicitor-General that the I.A.O.S. would be excluded from receiving
grants from the fund, thus repeating the manoeuvre which he had already
unsuccessfully attempted in connection with the Agriculture and
Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill of 1899.
In accordance with this provision, the three Agricultural Organisation
Societies for England, Scotland, and Ireland, each applied for a grant
in aid. The applications were referred in due course for report to the
Government Departments concerned--that is to say, to the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries for the English and Scottish applications, and
to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for that from
the I.A.O.S. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries reported favourably,
and the British and Scottish Organisation Societies are to have their
grant. But the I.A.O.S. had to reckon with Mr. T. W. Russell, behind
whom stood Mr. Dillon and the politicians. The report of the Irish
Department on the Irish application was adverse, but the Commissioners
do not appear to have found the reasons given convincing. Much delay
ensued, but, ten months after the application was sent in, the matter
was submitted to the Council of Agriculture.
The machinery of the United Irish League was brought into action to
influence the votes of this body. Mr. Russell delivered an impassioned
harangue, and eventually the Council was induced to endorse his action
by a majority of 47 to 33.
Any grant in aid of agricultural co-operation is to be administered, if
Mr. Russell has his way, not by the society which has already been
instrumental in establishing nearly a thousand co-operative associations
in Ireland, and has served as a model on which the corresponding English
and Scottish Organisation Societies, now in the enjoyment of a State
subsidy, have been founded, but by the Department, which has hitherto
had no experience whatever of such work. Moreover, the co-operation
promoted by the Department is to be "non-competitive," by which I
suppose is meant, that it is not to affect any existing trading
interest. It is safe to say that agricultural co-operation, which has
_no_ effect upon any trading interest, will have very little effect upon
the farmers' interests either. So far as I know, the Development
Commissioners have not decided what course to take in this strange
situation. It may be that Ireland will lose the grant altogether; but in
any case I can well believe that they must hesitate to reverse the
policy already approved for England and Scotland, and in the face of
all experience commit the work of organising agricultural co-operation
to a State Department rather than to a voluntary association possessing
such a record as the I.A.O.S. has placed to its credit.
If now we ask what are the grounds of the hostility of the Nationalist
Party to the most hopeful Irish movement of recent years, the answer
appears to be twofold. The first is economic, or purports to be
economic: the second is frankly political.
1. Co-operation, it is urged, injures the middleman and the small
trader.
To encourage farmers to do well and economically for themselves what is
now done indifferently and expensively for them by the middleman, must
of course act injuriously on some existing interests. This is not
disputed. But the change is absolutely necessary for the regeneration of
rural Ireland, and this objection cannot be allowed to stand in the way.
Looked at in its broader and more enduring aspects, co-operation is
bound to stimulate and improve general trade by increasing the spending
power of the farmers. The Chambers of Commerce of Dublin and Belfast
have not been slow to perceive this, and have warmly endorsed the
Society's application for a grant from the Development Commissioners.
2. The political objection to the movement, so far as it takes the
definite form of charging the I.A.O.S. with being a propagandist body
aiming under the mask of economic reform at the covert spread of
Unionist opinions, will not stand a moment's examination. There is not a
particle of evidence in support of such a charge, and the presumption
against it is overwhelming. To mix political propagandism with
organisation would be the certain ruin of the movement. The Committee of
the I.A.O.S. consists of men of all shades of political faith. These men
could never have joined hands except on the basis that politics should
be rigidly excluded from the work of the Society. The members of the
co-operative societies founded by the I.A.O.S. number nearly 100,000.
Probably at least three-fourths of these are Nationalists.
In order, however, that all doubt on the subject might be finally
removed, the I.A.O.S. issued a circular to all its societies, in which
the following question was directly put:--
"Has the I.A.O.S., as a body, or the Committee acting for it, done,
in your opinion, any act in the interest of any political party, or
any act calculated to offend the political principles of any
section of your members?"
The answers received have been published and form very interesting
reading. Not a single society, of the many hundreds that have replied
from all parts of Ireland, has been found to assert that politics have
ever been mentioned by the agents of the parent association.
The hostility of the politicians to the co-operative movement rests, it
is safe to surmise, upon some other foundation than these flimsy charges
against the I.A.O.S.
In itself the movement is vital to the prosperity of rural Ireland. The
disfavour shown to it arises from apprehensions respecting its
_indirect_ bearing upon the great issue between Unionism and
Nationalism. Home Rulers who oppose the co-operative movement find
themselves in this dilemma: either they hold that nothing in the way of
material improvement could affect the demand for Home Rule, or else they
are really afraid lest "better farming, better business, and better
living," should weaken the attractions of their own political nostrum.
In the former case, they are left without a shadow of justification for
their attitude towards the I.A.O.S.; in the latter, they tacitly admit
that the interests of the farming classes must suffer in order that the
cause of Home Rule may be promoted.
Unionists are in no such difficulty. Our policy is clear and consistent.
Improvement in the social and economic condition of the people must be
our first object. It is an end to be pursued for its own sake, whatever
the indirect consequences may be. But the indirect consequences need
cause us no anxiety. Increased material prosperity, and the contentment
which inevitably accompanies it, whatever their other effects may be,
are not likely to strengthen the demand for constitutional changes.
Successful resistance to Home Rule at the present crisis may well mean
the saving of the Union for good and all.