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.