Recent developments in Limerick have seen prominent figures in the Irish industrial world raise serious concerns and criticisms of the Department of Agriculture and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (I.A.O.S.). While it is acknowledged that some criticisms may be based on misinformation or ignorance, it is clear that the issues at hand cannot be dismissed lightly.
Mr A.W. Shaw, Sir Thomas Cleeve, and Alderman O’Meara, all influential figures in Irish industry, have voiced their concerns about the handling of various agricultural sectors by the Department of Agriculture and its close association with the I.A.O.S.
Mr Shaw, a friend of Sir Horace Plunkett, expressed his disappointment with the Department’s approach to the bacon industry, which he believed had been detrimental rather than supportive. He revealed that the I.A.O.S., previously thought to be a private association funded by voluntary contributions, was heavily subsidized by the Department and essentially operated as a branch of the Board of Agriculture. Mr Shaw also alleged that paid agents had traveled the country, agitating against the Munster provision trade, thanks to funds from the Board of Agriculture.
Sir Thomas Cleeve, whose firm pays £50,000 a year in wages, criticized the Department’s actions in relation to the butter industry. He argued that instead of fostering existing industries and encouraging new ones, the co-operative movement, backed by the Department, had attacked established industries. Sir Thomas also questioned the one-sided nature of ongoing inquiries.
Mr Plews, the Manager of the Great Northern Bigot Railway, raised eyebrows by suggesting that the recent conference between Irish railway managers and a deputation from the Transit Committee should be held in private. This sparked concerns about transparency in the railways’ dealings.
The issue of through rates, previously discussed in the LEADER, resurfaced during the discussions. Mr Furlong emphasized that Irish firms did not seek preferential rates but merely wanted the same rates for sending goods within Ireland as foreign competitors received. Mr Plews, however, questioned whether there was proof that this disparity currently existed, prompting skepticism about his view of the matter.
Mr Plews also made contradictory statements, initially suggesting that Irish railways did not offer lower rates for imported goods compared to Irish goods and then arguing that if Irish railways charged the same rates for Irish and imported goods, they would face financial difficulties.
These criticisms reveal a growing discontent and mistrust in the Department’s handling of agricultural affairs and its relationships with organizations like the I.A.O.S. It remains to be seen how these concerns will impact policy decisions and the future of Ireland’s agricultural sector.
Dublin Leader – Saturday 07 July 1906
