Deputy MacEntee asked about the grant for the Incorporated Law Society. The grant is by way of assisting the Society to meet the expenses in carrying out its disciplinary duties, which were imposed by the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898. The amount which is voted is roughly about two-thirds of the expenses incurred by the Society in carrying out these duties. The Society is, as the Deputy has stated, a voluntary body, to which solicitors may or may not belong, as they choose. Nevertheless, this voluntary body is charged with the responsibility of keeping the register, and the responsibility for taking certain action where there has been misbehaviour on the part of a solicitor, and which may require his removal from the roll of the Society. Therefore, the Society is carrying out duties which are useful, not only to its own members, but are of value to the public. It is carrying out duties which are for the protection of the public, and consequently there seems to be a case for continuing the grant.
With reference to the grant to the National Theatre Society, there is this difference between the Abbey Theatre and the Gate Theatre, that the Abbey Theatre is precluded from playing modern English drama. It can only produce plays by Irish authors, or plays which, I think, were written before the year 1800 in English, and plays which are translated from the works of European authors. There is a considerable number of plays which, under its patent, the Abbey Theatre is not entitled to perform. The Gate Theatre has the choice of any play that it chooses. The object of those who have established the Gate Theatre is to give the public of Dublin the opportunity of seeing plays they otherwise would not see, and seeing them produced in a highly capable and artistic manner. It has no special responsibility for the encouragement of drama relating to Ireland. I do not say that the Gate Theatre will not provide a stimulus for writers. I think it is most likely it will. I also think it cannot be denied that the directors of the Abbey Theatre have in recent years made a few unfortunate mistakes in regard to the selection of plays submitted, and which well merited production. They were refused production, but I do not know that any institution which has been in existence for a considerable time will not make some errors, and I would not be inclined to take the grant, or any part of it, from the Abbey Theatre, because, in my view, plays were rejected which ought to have been accepted.
I have no doubt that the work of the Gate Theatre will be good for the Abbey Theatre. Undoubtedly it is a fact that the work of the Abbey Theatre has made it possible for an institution like the Gate Theatre to be established, because without it there would not have been the actors or an interest in acting. For instance, a few years ago it enabled the Drama League, from which in a sense the Gate Theatre arose, to be carried on. I think a lesser sum than £1,000 would not be of very much assistance to an institution such as the Abbey Theatre. My own personal view would be against giving any additional money for the encouragement of drama in English. If any additional money is to be provided at any future time for the encouragement of the writing or production of plays I think it ought to be given for the writing and production of plays in Irish.
With regard to the research grant, the total amount of the grant under the sub-head last year was allocated, but certain students may have found employment and not earned the full grant. I cannot at the moment tell the Deputy whether the full amount allocated was expended, but if it was not expended it would be due to some of the students having ceased carrying on research work and having entered into some employment. With regard to the final sub-head to which Deputy MacEntee referred, if the Deputy will address a Parliamentary question to me with regard to the number of cases heard I would deal with the matter. This much I will say, that the work carried out by this official is of a judicial nature, especially in cases where big sums may be involved, and it is not work one could have done very cheaply. Deputy Doyle asked a question which was not inappropriate in regard to the Zoological Society. I think the people here are not as bad yet as the people in Great Britain, where owing to the operations of the Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals it has become almost impossible to feed the animals in the Zoo as they ought to be fed lest the public should be shocked. Here at any rate the animals are not likely to die from unsuitable feeding as the result of the intervention of people imbued with an excess of humanitarian feeling.
With reference to the Folklore Institute, I do not think it is proposed to employ any full-time person. For the present the work of the Society will be directed by Mr. De Largy, who is a member of the staff of University College, Dublin. He has had special training in folk lore work and is very interested in it. He has done a great deal of folk lore work. Mr. De Largy will be assisted by voluntary effort. After all, collection can best be done by great numbers of people who will work during their holiday periods on special excursions rather than by one or two people who might be specially employed as collectors and recorders. It may be that in some instances some assistance will be given by way of meeting expenses to people who will carry out this work of recording, but I do not think the work that has to be done could be done on the basis of paid labour. When the institute has been at work a year or two, and we will see what the needs are, and what can be done with the present sum, and whether or not it would be desirable to allocate a further amount.
