The first item on the Orders of the Day was disposed of yesterday, and the next is the resumed debate on the motion by Deputy Milroy.
FISCAL COMMISSION'S REPORT (RESUMED DEBATE).
Debate resumed on following motion moved by Mr. Milroy:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that the Government in considering the fiscal problem should have regard not merely to the admittedly restricted view of the matter taken by the Fiscal Inquiry Committee as indicated in their final Report, but should examine the problem in the broadest possible aspect—due regard being taken of all the factors affecting the general well-being of the Saorstát.
When the Dáil adjourned last evening I was coming to the close of my detailed criticism of the Report of the Fiscal Commission. It will be within the recollection of the Dáil that I had listed the main objections of the Committee to a policy of protective tariffs under seven heads. I dealt with six, and I think I have disposed of the contention of that Committee, that tariffs do not lead to expansion of industry and increase of employment; that they increased the cost of living, wages, and prices, and that they were useless as a preventative against dumping, and would hurt Irish agriculture. These were the contentions that I had taken up, challenged, and I think refuted. I was coming to the last of my counts in my indictment against this Committee when the Dáil adjourned. The last item was the contention of the Committee in paragraph 109. In that paragraph they advanced as an argument against protective tariffs "that such things are difficult and highly technical in their construction, requiring expert and costly assistance, constant supervision, frequent alteration, and periodical adjustment." If that argument means anything it means that protective tariffs involve some trouble to the State. I am not denying that. There are many other things in life besides tariff policies that are troublesome. Going to Mass or to Church on Sundays is troublesome, going to work every morning is troublesome, training for a University degree is troublesome, and even preparing a criticism of this tariff Report has been somewhat troublesome to me. I suppose even the preparation of the Report itself—the time and labour of the Committee—would constitute a rather difficult and highly technical operation, but still the members of that Committee thought the labour and the time involved were worth while. I am not sure that many of us would agree with that particular sentiment.
Almost every country in the world has found it necessary to set up protective tariffs. That proves, I think, at least, that if there are difficulties in the matter, those difficulties are not insurmountable—in fact, it is doubtful if these difficulties are at all considerable, because I find that in the case of many very small nations whose population and system of government are not reputed to be very enlightened there are, in these countries, highly specialised tariff systems. I give as an instance the Republic of Guatemala, in Central America, which has a protective tariff containing as many as 2,505 items. Presumably the contention of the Committee in this respect is that in An Saorstát we have not the capacity to deal with this matter equal to the natives of Guatemala.
A DEPUTY
What about Liberia?
I leave Liberia to be dealt with by the Deputy who alluded to it, when he rises to speak. I think I have quite sufficient on my hands. The Committee made great play with the fact that manufacturers who had been before it were not unanimous as to the extent of the protection they wanted. The underlying implication of that is this, that a uniform tariff policy ought in any event to suffice for all industries, and that manufacturers ought to be in a position to tell what rate the tariff should be. That is a gross misrepresentation of the real position. Generally speaking, in all Protectionist countries foodstuffs and raw materials are admitted free, or at very low rates, expressed in terms of ad valorem duties. As the degree of manufacture to which the article has to be subjected increases the tariff rate on that article is also increased. To illustrate the principle which I am trying to explain, I will quote the following examples from the tariff of the United States regarding the duties on flax and its manufactured derivatives, which is fully typical of tariff methods in other countries and illustrates the principle I am explaining: “Flax and manufactures of: flax straw, 2 dollars per ton, that is, one-eleventh of a cent per pound; flax hackled, 2 cents per lb.; flax single yarns not finer than twelve lea, 10 cents per lb.; yarns finer than twelve lea and not finer than sixty lea, 10 cents per lb., and half of one cent per lb. additional for each lea or part of lea in excess of twelve; yarns finer than sixty lea, 35 cents per lb., and, in addition thereto, on any of the foregoing yarns when baled, two cents per lb.; when bleached, dyed or otherwise treated, 5 cents per lb. The duties on woven fabrics and articles of clothing are still higher and are mostly ad valorem, ranging from 10 per cent. to 55 per cent., according to the nature of the fabric, the higher duty being imposed upon the finer and more finished goods. Thus it will be seen that the object of the protective tariff in this instance is to discourage the importation of goods in the manufacture of which any considerable amount of foreign labour and foreign capital has been employed. On the other hand the raw material, which is susceptible of taking on a considerable amount of additional value through manufacturing process after importation, is admitted almost free, and, indeed, in most protected countries there is no import duty whatever upon raw materials. It is important to meet another contention of the Committee, that what is the finished article in one department of one industry or one enterprise, is the raw material of another. In this instance the flax straw was the raw material of the yarn, the yarn was the raw material of the woven fabric, and the woven fabric the raw material of the article of clothing.
The construction of a tariff to meet the circumstances of the case has presented no special difficulty to the United States, nor in parallel cases, to the Governments of other countries. Yet here is what the Committee has to say on this most important point. In paragraph 10 it states: "It is clear where one industry feels it is justified in claiming a tariff of 40 per cent., while another thinks its interests adequately protected by one of 5 per cent., it will be extremely difficult either to select one industry for a higher measure of protection than another or to fix upon a general tariff of a reasonable and adequate amount." I regard that statement, coupled with the statements in paragraph 11 upon this same subject, as a deliberately-conceived and mischievous attempt to mislead the Government and the people in regard to the theoretical and technical principles upon which protective tariffs are constructed. As regards the objections raised by the Committee as a reason for declining to adopt a tariff policy in An Saorstát that such arrangements necessitated frequent revision, my comment on that is this, I have here the Board of Trade Journal of December 27th last, and in that I find a list published of the revision of Customs and Tariffs recently carried out or pending in different countries. The list contains the names of 32 foreign countries and six British Empire countries, and I suppose they are also foreign, which have carried out recently, or are carrying out, such revisions. The inference is perfectly obvious that these revisions constitute part of the normal duties of the administrative machinery of Government, and present no special difficulty whatever. Amongst the countries listed as carrying out such revisions, I find the names Colombia, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and China. Is our administrative capacity so far below the capacity of the people of these countries that what they can achieve presents in the minds of our high professors of political economy an unsurmountable barrier to the adoption of the policy which, from other points of view, has substantial arguments in its favour? Such are the lengths of contemptible innuendo to which Cobdenite propaganda can go. Now, this Report elevates the consumer into a sort of demi-god, with special claims and rights, and places him in a different category altogether from the producer. One would imagine from this Report that the consumer was a thing apart. The idea that the consumer, the producer and the citizen could be one, and the same person is utterly repugnant to the logic and philosophy of our Tariff Committee. Assuming for the moment the validity of an argument, already disproved, that a protective tariff increases the cost of living, and, therefore, increases to the consumer the cost of the articles he needs, and, further, that such an increase is undesirable, it would follow, one would naturally think, that anything that would lower the price of the article to the individual consumer would conduce to the general wellbeing of the nation. Let us see if it does. Suppose Messrs. Bass and Co. were able to produce a beverage that appeals so strongly to the British and Irish consumers, and that it was sold so much cheaper than Guinness's stout that it drives the latter off the market, the result would be an immense expansion of the works of Bass and Company, probably at Burton-on-Trent, and the ruin of the firm of Guinness and Son, with the loss to this country of the employment which that firm provided, and the contributions it makes, directly and indirectly, through its employees to the general and local taxation of the country. Suppose that Messrs. Jacob and Co. were ruined on the same principle also, and our woollen manufactures or cycle factories, our boot and shoe industries, our engineering industries, and all through the gamut of Irish manufacturing industry. The individual consumer would have gained some fractional advantage in the matter of the cost of the article, but the question is would the result be that the nation as a whole would have gained? Commonsense at once answers that that is the certain path to national suicide. That is the path that this country has been following ever since the days of the fall of Grattan's Parliament, and it is the path that the Fiscal Committee recommends this nation to pursue in the future. Sir, the conclusion of the Committee, based upon the claims and rights of the consumer, like all the rest of the conclusions in this Report, are wholly fallacious and untenable, and that falsity is proven independently of the major premise upon which this proposal rests, that protection increases the cost of living. That proposition I have, in earlier parts of my observation, shown to be false in itself.
Yesterday, in the earlier portions of my observations, I drew attention to certain matters vital to any enquiry into tariffs which the Committee in its wisdom, or rather its lack of wisdom, had seen fit to ignore. I want now to mention a few topics dealt with by the Committee very fully, and which, I think it will be conceded, were entirely outside the scope of such an enquiry. The Committee devoted a number of paragraphs to discussing the question of the efficiency of labour and management, and of rates of wages. It is not my intention to offer an opinion at this moment as to whether labour and management are efficient or inefficient, or whether underpaid or overpaid. There are protectionist countries where labour is highly efficient, as in the United States and Germany, and there are protectionist countries where labour is highly inefficient, as in British India. There are protectionist countries where management is highly efficient, as in the United States, and there are protectionist countries where management is alleged to be highly inefficient, as in Soviet Russia. It seems almost needless to observe that there are all kinds of intermediate gradations between some protectionist countries and others in the matter of labour, management, and rates of wages, and it follows from that that the question of the efficiency or the inefficiency of labour and management, or whether wages are high or low, are matters that have no relevancy in an enquiry into tariffs. The digression of the Committee in this respect seems to me to constitute a glaring departure from its terms of reference, which irregularity is very much accentuated by the manner in which it ignores matters of the most vital and essential interest to such an enquiry, and which factors I have already dealt with in detail. But what makes this digression so especially unpardonable is the grossly improper manner in which the topics in question have been dealt with in the Report. The employers are told in so many words that their trouble is due largely to the fact that wages are high and labour inefficient. The labourers are told that management is inefficient and that the native industry is unsuited to them; the consumer is told that employers and employees between them are going to fleece him, and, as if this doleful picture is not sufficient to make our blood run cold, the agriculturalist is told that he will have to bear without alleviation all the ills that according to the Cobdenite theory protection brings in its trail. An appeal is made not to the patriotism or the civic sense of the different sections, but to the lower selfish interests, thus claiming, if it has any result at all, to produce an end that is crippling and retarding to the progress of this country; and thus to set class against class and interest against interest, instead of trying, as we would expect such a Committee to do, to bring together and weld together in common identity the whole interests within the State. Now, lest anyone, however, should think that this is a new trace of Cobdenism I quote the following passage from List's work written, as I have mentioned already, 80 years ago:—
"It is all very well for Dr. Bowring to assure us that the home industry of Germany is being protected at the expense of the agriculturists. But how can we attach any credence to his assurance, when we all see, on the contrary, that the demand for agricultural produce, prices of produce, the wages of labour, the rents, the value of property, have everywhere considerably risen without the agriculturist having to pay more than he did before for the manufactured goods which he requires.
"It is very well for Dr. Bowring to give us an estimate showing that in Germany three persons are engaged in agriculture to every one in manufacture, but the statement convinces us that the number of Germans engaged in manufacturing is not yet in proportion to the number of German agriculturists. And we cannot see by what other means this disproportion can be equalised, than by increasing the protection on those branches of manufacture which are still carried on in England for the supply of the German market by persons who consume English instead of German agricultural produce. It is all very well for Dr. Bowring to assert that German agriculture must only direct its attention to foreign countries if it desires to increase its sale of produce; but that a great demand for agricultural produce can only be attained by a flourishing home manufacturing power is taught us not alone by the experience of England, but Dr. Bowring himself implicitly admits this, by the apprehension which he expresses in his report, that if England delays for some time to abolish her corn laws, Germany will then have no surplus of either corn or timber to sell to foreign countries."
I have not had the opportunity of reading this report to which List refers, but from what one can deduce from it, it almost seems that the arguments used by this agent of the British Government are an attempt to try to contrive an economic vassalage of Germany to England. From the arguments used for that purpose eighty years ago, one would think that they had been copied word for word into this report made by the members of this Irish Fiscal Committee. Nor is there anything very remarkable in that except this: that it gives us almost conclusive proof of the extent to which so many of our economists are in the grip of Cobdenite propaganda, and are either unwilling or unable to extricate themselves. The contents of the pedlar's bag, which is Cobdenism, has not changed its nature in the slightest within the last seventy or eighty years. In the interval, it has made its appearance in the ante-room of every Chancellory in Europe, only to be returned with its contents unsold and unwelcome. It has made its appearance here now in the hope, and I think the vain and empty hope, that some of its garish rags will be mistaken by the Irish people, unversed in its contents, as genuine pure gold. However, those of us who have no illusions, either as to the country of origin or the quality of its rags, will take such precautions as are in our power to see that they are properly labelled before they are offered to the Irish people. Throughout this report every divergency of interest, between the different sections of the community, has been strongly emphasised, and all the interests which the community have in common have been ignored. The Committee has not even once found occasion to use the words "citizen" or "citizenship." In fact all its statements and all its conclusions imply a very negation of the rights and the obligations associated with citizenship. In this country of many distractions, one would have thought that a Committee, with such responsibility as this, would have manifested some little appreciation of the interests in common between employer and employee, between producer and consumer, and between agriculturist and manufacturer, because after all these interests in common are much more comprehensive and are of far greater importance than the interests of a separate or divergent nature. But I think I have already indicated that the Committee seem never to have been able to visualise their Terms of Reference from the standpoint of the nation or the citizen, but only from the standpoint of a group of individuals with divergent interests, in other words, not that of a nation but that of a squabbling rabble, and that seems to the Committee to be the most satisfactory dénouement —that while these poor foolish crows are, so to speak, squabbling for a piece of cheese, the fox comes along and appropriates the spoils.
The Committee have made no concealment of their partiality for the fox. In paragraphs 121 and 123 it speaks of the serious disadvantage and the serious disability a protective tariff would impose on outside competitors. Think of that. Only once does it allude to the serious disability and the serious disadvantage under which home producers work; but the imposition of a protective tariff would impose a serious disability and a serious disadvantage upon outside competitors. What was this Committee set up for? Was it to advise means to safeguard the interests of importers and manufacturers who send their goods here, or was it to look after the interests of this poor unfortunate nation? I sometimes think we are worse off than Egypt was when it was subject to the ten plagues. I think our five Professors, if their teachings are followed, will leave this country in a worse condition than Egypt was after the infliction of those plagues. Those remarks express, with the vividness of a lightning flash in the darkness of the night, the mentality of the men who composed this Committee, and if there were no other objection, that would in itself explain to us why this Report is what it is.
I now refer to the arguments in paragraphs 135-6-7, where the Committee recognise that the policy of fiscal protection may be defended. Even in this instance the Committee is careful to put protection upon its defence upon other than economic grounds. The Committee, however, points out that in so far as economic considerations enter into the matter, they enter into it as objections. This, however, is simply a perversion of fact. The body of economic theory which advocates a system of protective tariffs on national grounds is far more comprehensive and far more reputable than that which advocates free trade. It would be no rash prophecy to assert or foretell that the names of such men as Hamilton, the two Careys, father and son; List, Muller, to mention only a few advocates of the system of national economics, will endure as long as those of Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, and certainly longer than those of the poor, unworthy satellites to be found, of all the places in the world, in this country.
Now, sir, I regret I have had to detain the Dáil at such great length, but I think you will agree that the labour of a body of men of such academic distinctions as our Professors, their labour for over six months, was not a thing to be dealt with in a haphazard sort of way, but was something to be taken seriously, particularly where those labours meant the welfare or the reverse of this country. I have tried to take them seriously and to treat their labour seriously. I would not have imposed myself upon the Dáil at such inordinate length if it were not that I saw there was a grave and serious matter involved. The gravity of the matter is my excuse, if excuse is needed, for making such a large claim upon the indulgence of the Dáil. The report appears to me, after analysis, and I think most here will agree with me, to be a professor's and a theorist's report, the report of men who acted, not upon evidence, but upon a desire to bring in a document in harmony with their own inclinations.
There are, however, on record two declarations by President Cosgrave which give me hope that this document will never be an indication of Government policy. The first is that made in his statement on the 15th June last when he said: "The Government must specially reserve to itself freedom to review the Committee's recommendations." I think I have given sufficient grounds for a review of those recommendations. The second is a declaration on the 16th December last: "We have not secured our political independence at the cost of so much loss and suffering, to surrender now our economic independence or any part of it." The whole tenor of the argument of this report is an appeal to nullify the economic independence of this State. I venture to predict that it will take more than the Cobdenite propensities of five professors to resurrect Pitt's dream of conquest of this country, especially at a moment when the genius and the statesmanship of our late President, Arthur Griffith, and the valour of the men who stood by him and this State have given our people the means and the opportunity to defeat that dream of conquest. It may be charged against me when I have finished that my allusions to the Fiscal Committee and the report have lacked somewhat the spirit of forbearance and have been unnecessarily caustic.
No, no.
But that is not my consideration here to-day, or my main consideration. An issue is raised here which involves such far-reaching consequences to the future welfare of the people of this State that the truth must be faced and spoken, no matter how the susceptibilities of certain persons are affected. Peter the Great, on one occasion, discussing lawyers, said: "There were two lawyers in my Dominions; I hanged one of them." I must say, when I perused this report, my disposition towards professors of political economy was much the same as that of Peter the Great towards lawyers. However, I suppose it is not practical politics to translate that disposition into actualities, and I suppose it is not even possible to bring them within the meaning of the Minister for Home Affairs' "Flogging" Bill. There is one thing we can and we should do, and that is, to analyse and expose the fallacies of this pernicious document and destroy any possibility of ever securing its acceptance in this country as an authentic testimony of its economic condition, or as a reliable guide to national health and stability.
The great human factor upon which this report should have informed us is ignored. That factor is the needs of the people, not the elusive attractions of the mirage of Free Trade. This report will bring, no doubt, great joy to the importer of foreign manufactured goods, but what hope does it bring to the thousands of starving unemployed and to the dweller in the slums, all those who are trying to eke out a miserable existence on a miserable few shillings a week? What hope does it bring to the man who is trying to pursue industrial enterprise against the powerfully organised opposition of foreign manufacturers' interests that dominate our home market?
What hope does it bring to the agriculturalist who, day after day, is driven in spite of himself to the disgraceful and enervating occupation of the rancher and the grazier? What hope does it bring to any section in Ireland? None whatever. The economic domination of this country by Great Britain is its inspiration, and its sole offering to the Irish people is the trail of the emigrant. It raises a picture dismal, disheartening, depressing, of a land that has no economic future, of a land where professors of economics accumulate and men decay. This question is not going to be settled by a chorus of professors, chanting "Every day and in every way free trade is better and better than protection." Happily, this report is not the last word on the matter. It gives us no clear light, no ray of hope to guide us to a solution of our social problem, and the general economic development of the State. We must search for that in another direction, and from other sources we must seek the remedy of our economic distress, if faith in the nation's future has not been abandoned by the people, and especially by those that the people have selected to be the custodians of their rights and liberties. In his statement last June the President said: "Questions of policy are not for this Committee. That will be a matter for the people and the Government when they have the facts before them." The full facts have not been before them, and have not been furnished by this report. I am rather of opinion that this report tends to obscure the facts. But facts are stubborn things, and they are more stubborn and stronger than even Professors of Economics, and these facts are going to prevail yet. I conclude with this admonition which Frederick List addressed to his country: "Let us only have courage to believe in a great national future, and in that belief march forward. Above all, let us have national spirit enough to at once plant and protect that tree which will yield its richest fruits to future generations; first, let us gain possession of the home market, so far at least as respects articles of general necessity, and secondly, let us try to procure the goods of other countries direct from those countries and pay for them with our own manufactured goods."
This Debate, if not concluded then, will be adjourned at five o'clock, when the motion standing in the name of Deputy O'Connell will be taken up. If the latter motion be disposed of before 8.30, the Dáil, if it wishes, may return to the further discussion of this motion.
May I just interpose in regard to that question that you have just raised. The matter which Deputy Milroy has raised is of pressing importance, and I am sure there are many Deputies who would like to speak upon it. A motion stands in my name for to-morrow. If Deputy O'Connell's motion be disposed of, and (if not disposed of) Deputy Milroy's motion is carried over until to-morrow, I suggest that my motion, which is down for to-morrow, should stand over until next week.
Better leave Deputy Milroy's motion stand over until next week.
I understand the arrangements have been agreed to by the Whips of the parties in the Dáil.
If Deputy Milroy's motion is not disposed of to-day, does it flow over until to-morrow? If it does, then I will be quite content to postpone my motion until such time as Deputy Milroy's motion has been disposed of.
That can be arranged.
I have great pleasure in seconding the motion proposed by Deputy Milroy. In making some remarks upon the Fiscal Report, I will not be able to bring to bear upon it the heavy artillery of Deputy Milroy. But I will have a tilt at it in my own way. I support the views set forth by Deputy Milroy, and for many reasons, and not the least of them is this reason, that protection was one of the policies of Arthur Griffith. He had a political policy and he had an economic policy. The aim of his life was to put the English soldier out of this country. He also proposed to put the foreign dumper out of the country. After the sacrifices made for the last ten years to get English rule, bag and baggage, out of Ireland, it would be too bad if the foreign dumper were still to remain and to reap the benefit of the changed condition of things. I wish also to express my great surprise at this Fiscal Report. To most people in the country it came almost as a shock, for a poor country whose industries were anaemic or strangled, whose agriculture was at a low ebb, to hear that the policy of leave-it-so was to be insisted upon, and that no protection was to be afforded. The people were almost as surprised at that, as if the law of gravitation were attacked. Now, every country in the world, except England, has tried protection, because it is a sensible policy to preserve your own home markets, and to allow no foreigner to come in and use your home markets for the sale of his articles. If England is an exception to that rule, the reason of it is obvious to everyone. England got ahead of the rest of the world in manufactured articles, and was prepared to maintain her lead by free trade. She has done so up to the present successfully. When it is pointed out to those free traders that a great nation like America has set up a tariff, they say: "Oh, but America is a continent with vast resources." Is it not a reason on our side, if America, a continent with vast resources, adopts protection, that we should adopt it? If America with almost unlimited resources was not able without protection to build up a prosperous manufacturing system, how could a poor country like Ireland build it up?
If America is vast for its hundred millions of population, Ireland is equally rich for its three millions, and can provide almost everything that the country needs. The Cobdenites to whom Deputy Milroy has so often referred come along to us and say: "Why go to the trouble of making boots, clothes, bicycles or anything at all? Sit down and we will make them, and if you go into the poor-house afterwards it is not our fault." This report, I submit, is a most partial one. I have heard of manufacturers who went before the Commission, and according to themselves they felt that they might have been before Sir Hamar Greenwood for all the sympathy they got. We were told that the Commissioners were to confine themselves to facts, and that they had nothing to do with policy. There are only two policies—protection or free trade—and in every page of that report there is an attempt to knife protection, and the policy of free trade, which suits England and does not suit Ireland, is boomed. These men who came up from the country to give evidence in the hope of getting some encouragement came to regard the witness box into which they were put as a sort of torture chamber. You will find the report most illogical and inconsistent, and if each of the five men wrote part of it, that would account for the fact that one portion contradicts another. All through, they do not look upon the question from the point of view of the nation. It reminds me of the old Unionist argument when we were trying to get control of our own affairs, when an Irish county was compared with an English county and it was contended we had no grievance, as the same laws governed both. We could not meet that argument on that plane, but the argument failed when approached from the national standpoint. If you go on the lines of this report you will never build up a prosperous nation. They talk about getting this and that article cheap, but that is not the point. We want to make the article. It is like asking a farmer to buy a ha'p'orth of milk here and there. The farmer wants his cow, and Ireland also wants her cow so as not to be obliged to buy a ha'p'orth of milk. Some of the witnesses stated that they wanted protection for their little industries, and the extraordinary reply they got was: "If you get protection, people, like the Imperial Tobacco Company, will come in." Why should they not come in? Would they not be welcome here? They would give employment and spend money. We would prefer to have industries set up with Irish capital, but we want the articles made in Ireland and consumed in Ireland, no matter whose money it is. The capitalist, if he is a foreigner, will only get 5 per cent. on his money, and what members of the Committee regard as a disaster would prove to be a boon. That is an extraordinary conclusion for these men to come to. They say that one factory would turn out all the articles of a certain class, but that it would lead to a combine. How uneasy they are about Irish commercial morality! These naughty Irish manufacturers might form a combine! Did they ever hear of the Imperial Tobacco Trust, of the Oil Trust, and the Meat Trust? Is the foreign manufacturer too good to combine? Why did they reserve all their horror and disgust for an Irish combine and allow the foreign one to starve the country, and take the bit out of the mouth of the Irish workers? Then, again, they say, with regard to boots, that one great industry might supply all the boots necessary, but it would be a monopoly. What would it matter if it were a monopoly so long as we had the articles made in Ireland, Irish workmen paid for them, and homes made prosperous by them? As a specimen of a combine in this country, the nearest thing approaching it would be Guinness's Brewery. Are the workmen there any worse off by being connected with the monopoly? Is it not better to have our stout made by an Irish monopoly than by foreigners?
At 9d. a pint?
Again the Committee say that if protection is given certain industries would not be able to turn out all the articles needed, as they would not have the plant. Of course they would not have the plant right away, but the plant would grow. That shows the length to which these gentlemen went to find arguments against protection. There is no point in these references to monopoly. They are forced in fact to admit the argument in favour of protection in every successful country in the world, but they point out that it would not suit Ireland. Then again they say that under protection workmen enough could not be got in certain cases, except from Scotland. It is like a doctor saying to a sick man: "If you take this medicine, you will get too strong and too fat." If protection comes, the Irish commercial body will not be able to stand the success. In regard to one trade they say that if it were protected it would not be able to turn out all the articles. As regards leather goods, they say that undoubtedly an Irish factory would be able to turn out all that is required, but they still have to add a rider of dissent and state "suppose you did set up a tariff to protect Irish tanneries an English factory would come in." Supposing Englishmen did come in with their capital to subsidise an Irish industry, are we to turn them down as long as we get the trade? I make the same comment on that as I made on the tobacco industry. It is ridiculous and absurd. They are forced on a general survey to admit that protection would be good. They say:—
"The result of the imposition of a tariff would be a stimulus to industry to produce up to the extent of its capacity," which would be an alarming thing for the professors, "and would also be an incentive to expansion and production," which would be another unfortunate thing. This would mean a period of industrial stimulus and expansion which would only terminate with complete control of the market. If capital were available existing firms might largely increase their factories and plant, and new firms would arise to take advantage of such favourable conditions. Having admitted so much against their grain, they had to add a special rider to take the value out of it. They said that they had a distinguished Labour leader before them, who said "That if the country got prosperous labour would insist on getting prosperous, too. That would mean another disaster." Anything more silly I never read in my life. Here is another paragraph of this brilliant report. "The industry will, no doubt, if capital and labour could be secured, expand and develop under protection, but the production can never be so economical as to provide the public with boots at the prices at which they are now obtained." Where you are paying £1 to-day for a boot from Nottingham you would pay 21/- for an Irish boot, and the view of this Committee was that if those boots were made in Ireland by Irish workmen who were prosperous, and if the slums were to disappear in consequence, that would be no compensation for the fact that we should pay a shilling or two more for our boots. Where did those people study their economy? I hold that that sentence would damn their report as an economic one. When they wanted to frighten manufacturers coming from the country, and who wanted protection for their own little industries which have been strangled, they threatened them with the Imperial Tobacco and other companies. What was the answer of those manufacturers? They said: "We welcome them; let them come. We want fair conditions, but we are entitled to the home market, which is our market. Let us look after the Irish market, and let other countries look after their own."
That reminded me of what Griffith used to say to the internationalists: "Before we talk of internationalism we must first set up our nation." The same thing applies to free trade. Let us capture our own market for the main articles, as List said, and then there can be the usual inter-play between the nations for foreign markets. Let us first secure our own market for our own people. We are sending millions of our people outside to make boots and shoes for us abroad. We are emigrating our own sons and daughters to make them. Go over to Scotland and travel from the Tyne to Manchester and you find thousands of Irishmen making articles for Ireland who should be making them at home. This is a policy which no nation should be guilty of. If it is all the same whether our people live in Birmingham or Dublin, let us have free trade, but if we mean to keep the Irish nation a comfortable Irish nation, we must set up our own industries. The country must stand on its agricultural and industrial legs. They want to frighten us about the farmer. Why should the Irish farmer be poor when we can put a fine market at his door? Why should we not make Irish agriculture rich? I saw a statement the other day about the value of farms in America, and the farms in the States which were industrial were three times the value of the farms in agricultural districts.
Deputy Milroy read some extracts to show how protection helped industries in foreign countries and how free trade injured them. I have read a book dealing with the silk industry in Dublin, which once gave employment to 11,000 hands who had comfortable homes. They then enjoyed a ten per cent. tariff, and when it was proposed to take off the ten per cent. tariff they sent a deputation to the English Chancellor, who delivered a Machiavellian homily. They wanted a tariff, but he told them that they would be far better off when the tariff would be taken away, and that for every ten weavers that were then employed in the production of Irish poplins they would be able to give employment to one hundred fold. England took off the tariff of ten per cent. from the industry. The result was beggary and ruin. Go down to Weaver's Square, where the workers lived in comfort, and you will see the ruins. The man who went over on that deputation, a Mr. Wadden, packed up his goods and went away leaving twenty thousand pounds worth of property after him. The Irish silk industry was wiped out. Afterwards England took the tariff off her own silk industry, and it, too, was wiped out. America increased the tariff, and her silk industry increased by leaps and bounds. That is proof certain that certain industries must be protected. I make a clear distinction between home and foreign markets. We should protect the main industries of the home market. I am for giving the main industries full protection. In America the farmer gets protection against the Canadian farmer on corn. The Irish farmer should get protection, too. If he does not, what is the prospect of agriculture in this country with the stream of dead meat from the Argentine continuously increasing every day, and with butter imports increasing? When Russia is opened up, where shall we be? The Irish farmer has the first claim on the Irish market. He should have it. We have a rich country, and we should have its products for ourselves. Common-sense shows that we should hold this country for ourselves and exchange its industrial for its agricultural products. England has no great objection to tariffs or any excise remission when it suits her. Take the beet industry. England grants an exemption of excise duty on beet, and three great beet factories were set up by arrangement with the farmers in Norfolk. Last year the profit on one factory alone was £136,000. The farmers around there are prosperous and are going to set up another factory. Why should not Ireland have a beet industry and also a large flax industry? Why is it that there is an attack on the Irish manufacturer? He is made out of the one cloth as ourselves. Are not the Irish worker and the Irish manager as good as those in any other part of the world? Wherever they get the same chances they prove themselves to be so.
I say that the Irish manufacturer is entitled to a chance, and the way to give him a chance is to hold back the foreigner until we have built up the home market; give him complete control of the home market. In supporting Deputy Milroy's motion I suggest that this Report is an incomplete Report and an unfair Report. If it marks out a line of national policy it is not the line that should be taken, but the line that should not be taken. The Government should propose a national policy to make the most of our national resources and to help to build up Irish industries by tariffs on agricultural produce and other foreign imports.
Mr. EGAN
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Agreed.
When is it proposed to resume the debate?
Mr. O'CONNELL
I suggest that you wait until my motion is disposed of.
This will come on again then as the first business after the next motion is disposed of.
Mr. EGAN
Do I understand that the resumed debate comes on immediately after Deputy O'Connell's motion?
Mr. O'CONNELL
Yes, after this motion is disposed of.
Yes, either on this evening or to-morrow.