Industrial Development,—Inter-Commonwealth Trade.

Dr. Gogarty

I move:

That the Seanad is of opinion that the Executive Council should take all practicable steps to foster the development of home industries through a co-ordinated policy of inter-Commonwealth trade.

As this matter is one which is beyond Party, I want to be as impartial as the animal that proved so venerated and sacred during the late disturbances, that is the Irish bull. I do not claim this veneration but I claim that this is more than a Party matter and beyond Party. Hitherto it has been thought that Great Britain could not retaliate on us for any sentiments or opinions held in this country because she could not tax her own food, but already that position is completely altered. Not alone will the food be taxed but there is in Great Britain already one of the most astounding co-operative mergers that has ever existed in any part of the world, that is to say, the Home and Colonial, the Maypole Dairy, the Meadow Dairy and Lipton's. Immense grocery distributing organisations have been merged in one. That is of such importance that not alone can it make a market for a country but it can always by reaction control the price of the produce in that country, somewhat in the same way as Armour was able to control the price of cattle in the Argentine through being a monopolist and the sole avenue towards a market. The proposed synthesis of the Commonwealth in England or this co-operative store in which the British market is about to be cornered has been interpreted by some people to be an onslaught on our tariff wall, an attempt to break down the advantage we have by being able to tax and to raise a tariff against goods for the protection of the resources of this country. But it is no such thing as an onslaught on our tariff wall. It is rather an invitation and an opportunity for us to increase the tariff, and to protect our market; in other words, although it may seem ludicrous, even to protect the British Empire, because there are certain countries sending many millions of foodstuffs into this country and taking practically nothing from us. For instance, the Argentine has put all our farmers in the position of competing with a prairie. It sends annually into Ireland about 2½ millions worth of produce and takes £22,000 out of the country in produce. Half of that is from Cork, from Ford's. Ford, excellent though he may be as a wage payer, is, after all, a magnificent but itinerant tinker. He is not a native product of Ireland and Cork quite possibly could be left in the position Belfast was left in, if Ford took his folding factory and went away, because I believe it is in sections and could go out any moment. We therefore see the market that she has. She sends in wheat, barley, maize and other things into this country. If we impose a tax as insuperable as the United States has put against Europe, against Argentine products, we would be then in a position whereby the surplus Canadian wheat could be dealt with and taken advantage of by this country because it is very plain to people that the writing is on the wall.

England is about to tax its food. It has been proved that countries where corn is protected have a cheaper loaf than the countries where free trade is in practice. While England had a sea trade—in other words, while it had a monopoly of the carrying trade of the oceans— it was possible to have free trade. In other words, it took its tariffs on the sea. It has no longer that monopoly. It will be very advantageous to it to trade with the ends of the earth—with New Zealand and Australia—provided the produce sent into the British market is carried in British bottoms. I need not go into the monopoly the ships have. Already they are spending a million on the advertising of the produce of New Zealand and Australia, and I must say, also, of Ireland. It is being done very impartially, but Britain is about, not so much to tax food, as to select the sources of food, and very possibly when these sources are linked up there will be no appreciable increase in food, just as in France and Germany there is no appreciable increase in bread. To us, who have practically the sole market in Great Britain, this is of more importance than to any other country in the world, because there is a very great prize offered to us, who have practically the monopoly of the fresh meat trade of Great Britain. I need not bore you with figures, but these are the prices and values of exports from Ireland into Great Britain:—Poultry, £850,000; eggs, £3,000,000; butter, £4,000,000; cattle, £13,500,000; sheep and lambs, £1,400,000; pigs, £2,000,000; pig products, that is, bacon, £4,000,000. That is about £30,000,000. Do we send to any other country anything equivalent to that? Of course, we do not. But on the other hand, we are taking in, with no compensatory business to this country, many things which are rivals to our chief market. If it came about that at this next Conference, of which statements have been made by responsible British Ministers that they intend to bring the whole question up, we were, in return for our co-operation, no longer to compete with or to have as our competitors Holland, Denmark, or the Argentine, that would be a prize which would be absolutely without parallel.

The future of the country would be endowed in such a way that we cannot imagine what prosperity would accrue, because as long as we are to have a market the less competition in that market the better, Apparently it is an axiom that that is desirable. If our Ministers go to the Imperial Conference with a view to getting every advantage they can out of the Imperial connection one thing that is necessary for doing that is really a matter of sentiment. It is a matter of acknowledging more frankly than at present people seem to do that Imperial connection. You cannot sell a man a bullock and give him a black eye at the same time. Though some of our extremists who have furthest removed themselves from reality have told the farmers of Ireland many things—many fairy tales —there is one thing that no political party dare tell the farmer, and that is to forbid him to sell his produce to the British Empire. Whether you call the Irish market England or the British Empire matters nothing. It is merely a matter of a source of wealth, and to benefit by the getting of a monopoly in this market means helping our home products. There are many other ways in which farmers have been helped in countries where farming was at a disadvantage —freight reduction and other ways— but I think the first way to help the farmer is to arrange that the British Empire take off the stranglehold over transport. At present there is great dissatisfaction with this method of transport, which is practically a monopoly, and in return for one monopoly we ought to get another one. I think we are paying a sufficient price to deserve a monopoly against Holland and Denmark in the British meat trade.

It has been an extraordinary problem to me why England has not raised its own poultry and eggs. That is the one vulnerable part of our trade in which competition could hit us. Land is got so cheap around London, and de-rating has given such advantages to the farmers that poultry, chicken and egg farms are quite easy to run. Already around Essex, where these small poultry farmers have co-operative transport, a very large proportion of the daily egg supply of London has been captured as against China, Denmark and Russia. In the last two or three years, on account of the Minister for Agriculture's excellent rules, this country has made astonishing progress in the markets around Manchester and Leeds for poultry, eggs and butter. Butter is one of our most important products, and the butter and egg trade is naturally dependent, to some extent, on facilities for transport. I think the only return at present we are asked to make is fully to realise the opportunity which we may gain and to be frank enough to alter the sentiment towards our customer.

I have very little more to say in the matter. Statistics are not necessary. Anyone can get them. I will only confuse myself and the House if I give you any more. The chief advantage to be got out of the British connection is this British monopoly for our oxen. After that follows the other produce. If this picture were to confront us it would not be very comforting; that is, if Belfast were in the co-operative store of nations, or whatever we like to call it, and we were left out. It would then restore itself to the position which it has hitherto nourished Upon. We would be, with a complete turnstile on our produce, at the mercy of a little corner of the country. All that can be altered, I think, by an alteration in the sentiment. Instead of this being misinterpreted as an insidious attempt to lower the tariffs which we so hardly won, it can be interpreted, I submit, as an opportunity to increase, to the exclusion of all non-productive clients of ours, our produce, and to concentrate on what is, as far as anybody can see, on account of our geographical position and the fact that the Continent feeds itself, our only source of wealth.

Mr. Counihan

As a farmer and a member of the live stock trade, I am very interested in the success of the policy which is the subject of this motion, and I hope the motion will be passed unanimously. This motion does not lay down a policy for the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations at the Imperial Conference. It simply proposes to do what we have a perfect right to do, that is, to instruct our Ministers who will be attending the Conference to advocate the policy of what is now known as Empire Free Trade. All parties in Great Britain are practically committed in some way or another through their leading statesmen to this policy. The Bankers' Conference the other day adopted the policy. The British Trade Union Congress held recently stated in their report: "We shall be well advised to develop as far as possible such economic relations between the constituent parts of the British Commonwealth as will be to our mutual advantage." There is no nation belonging to the British Commonwealth to which this policy, if adopted, will be of more material advantage than to the Free State. Senator Gogarty has given the figures with reference to our exports to Great Britain. Even if practically all our exports go to Great Britain, 95 per cent. of our imports come from Great Britain. For that big volume of trade we get nothing in return. It is time that we demanded some consideration for the fact that our sole import trade is with Great Britain. Even with regard to the few imports which are taxed, there is a preference given to Great Britain. At the present time, as far as our exports of agricultural produce and live stock are concerned, we are in no better position in the British market than any South American Republic or any country in Europe, or even China. A good many of these States which are outside the Commonwealth have a greater advantage than we have, because they have cheaper freights to the British markets. There is no such thing as preferential treatment for any of our imports.

England at the present time is in a bad way. She is waking up to the necessity of fostering and protecting her own trade and that of the Colonies. If this policy is carried to its logical conclusion we will not have any German subsidised oats imported. The German oats will have a tariff against them in the British market and that will give us a fair chance to compete with them. They will no longer be able to dump their subsidised commodities on the British market to the detriment of the exporters in this country. There is an old saying in this country that "England's difficulties are Ireland's opportunities." I should like to reverse that and say that "England's difficulties are Ireland's difficulties." A wealthy and prosperous England will be Ireland's opportunity, because a wealthy and prosperous England will mean a wealthy and prosperous Ireland. I hope the Seanad will pass this resolution so ably proposed by Senator Gogarty.

Mr. Johnson

I move:—

To delete all after the word "industries" down to the end of the motion.

I have been wondering for some days what was the intention of this motion because there were certain suggestions thrown out that it was not by any means intended to be a confirmation or adoption on the part of the mover of the Empire Free Trade policy which is being advocated in England to-day. Now I learn that it is nothing else, except possibly a policy of England-Ireland Free Trade: that England should impose a duty upon agricultural produce from any other country except Ireland.

Mr. Counihan

And the Colonies.

Mr. Johnson

Now we understand that England may be encouraged by the mover and seconder to impose a duty upon agricultural produce from every other country outside Ireland and the Colonies, and that is put forward as a practical step to foster home industry. Really I thought we would have had some indication from the mover or seconder of the motion as to how they were proposing to develop home industries through a co-ordinated policy of inter-Commonwealth trade. In my ignorance I assumed that the term "home industries" had some reference to manufacturing industries, but apparently only agriculture is in the mind of the mover and seconder of the motion. It is perhaps as well to look at some figures in connection with this matter. On the whole, I think that the question will be decided in England by facts, but it is more important for us to consider the effect of any policy of the kind on this country and I am presuming that the intention of the motion is to further the best interests of this country.

Apparently the mover and seconder have been caught up in this drive for Empire unity. The stress just now is upon economic unity; some other time it will be upon diplomatic unity, and at another time upon naval and military unity. I am against any policy of Empire unity in any of these connections. I believe we would be doing wrong in our own interests, and wrong in the general interests of British civilisation, if we can use that term, and civilisation generally, if we attempt, or join in any attempt, to consolidate these nations which constitute the present British Commonwealth into an economic, military or diplomatic unit.

What is the position regarding Irish trade with Great Britain — and that appears to be the only consideration so far adduced, although it is spoken of as inter-Commonwealth trade? According to the statistical returns, the exports in 1929 from the Free State to Great Britain and Northern Ireland were £43,500,000, or 93 per cent. of the whole. The imports from Great Britain and Northern Ireland were something less than £48,000,000, or 78 per cent. of the whole. We are, therefore, dealing mainly with inter-British Islands trade and not inter-Commonwealth trade at all. The proposition is that if we can persuade the British public to put a tax upon foreign imported foods we should get an advantage, and, in return, we shall and must presumably in theory, do something to reduce our taxation upon manufactured goods or cease putting further taxation upon manufactured goods so as to allow Britain to send her manufactured goods in greater quantities than heretofore into this country. If that is not the case what is the basis of the argument? Is it simply that we are to join in forcing the British public to penalise themselves for our advantage?

Dr. Gogarty

Hear, hear!

Mr. Johnson

The mover of the motion says "Hear, hear." Then we are to join the crusade in order to force the British public to penalise themselves for our advantage. The Senator told us that it is by no means likely that the British public will have to pay more for their food.

In that case, how is Senator Counihan to get benefit? If the British public are not going to pay anything more for their food stuffs, how are Senator Counihan and the farmers to get any benefit from this inter-Commonwealth free trade?

Inter-Commonwealth is the term used in the motion. I have shown from the figures I have qoted that external trade is 78 per cent. of the imports and 93 per cent. of the exports as between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Free State. How do we stand in regard to external trade outside these islands? In 1929 from Empire countries we had, in agricultural products, £1,012,000, and from non-Empire countries £6,140,000. Are we to tax the six millions for the sake of the one million? Is that the intention? As to industrial products, we imported £195,000 worth from Empire countries, and from non-Empire countries £6,081,000 worth. For whose benefit would be a tax which is specially directed against non-Empire countries? Our agricultural exports, including live stock, to Empire countries came to £45,700, and to non-Empire countries £801,000. As regards industrial products, including manufactured foods, our export to Empire countries was £494,000, and to non-Empire countries £2,046,000.

When we get away from Great Britain and Northern Ireland and talk about inter-Commonwealth trade, I am wondering what is in the minds of the mover and seconder of the motion. There is no advantage coming to this country from imposing an additional tariff upon non-Empire countries' goods as compared with Empire countries' goods outside Great Britain. At present we are giving a preference in a considerable number of items that are at present tariffed; our general policy up to now has been a preferential tariff in favour of Empire countries. If co-ordination means a separate and distinct agreement between the various countries for such classes of articles as will give us a mutual advantage, I am quite prepared to support an increase in preference with a view to closer co-operation, but I am going to do that having in mind Irish Free State interests and not British Empire interests.

Mr. Fanning

The prosperity of England is Ireland's chief asset.

Mr. Johnson

I am not doubting that for a moment.

Mr. Fanning

Then the Senator is arguing against his own beliefs.

Mr. Johnson

Not at all. If you can prove to the English people that it would be a very good thing for them to put a tax upon non-Empire goods but not upon Free State goods, I shall be delighted. If you can prove that to England it will be satisfactory. But I am not going to agree to postpone or annul any hopes of improving industrial development in this country. I am very much surprised to hear anybody making the suggestion that England is going to put a tariff upon all foreign agricultural produce and allow Irish Free State produce in free and not seek anything in return. Perhaps it might be worth taking note of this that the proposal of the mover to put a special duty upon non-Empire maize means the penalising of Argentine maize. The Argentine imported into this country £2,500,000 worth of maize. I would ask the farmer free traders what they are going to say to that? Are they going to ask the Empire by a united vote to put a tax upon Argentine maize and to allow in free any maize grown in the Empire? The records show that in 1929 there was no other maize imported into this country, certainly not direct, except from the Argentine. Of offals, oil seeds and manures there was about £500,000 worth imported from non-Empire countries — these are things which are going to be taxed under this scheme — against £28,000 from Empire countries, so that farmers will also have some questions to ask concerning this particular proposal. I have suggested that Great Britain will, perhaps, be a little slower than the mover of this motion imagines in adopting this policy for the benefit of the Irish Free State. There are certain figures given in the statistical returns in regard to the exports in which Irish agriculture especially is concerned, such as cattle, beef, pigs, pig products, mutton, butter, eggs and poultry. The total British imports of these commodities, in which the Irish farmer is specially concerned, were £194,000,000 last year and of that amount the Free State was responsible for fifteen per cent. or £29,000,000 and the other British Commonwealth countries for £34,000,000. That is to say, that of these particular items in which the Irish farmer is specially interested— one might say the only things in which he is specially interested— Great Britain imported from the Irish Free State £29,000,000 worth, from other Commonwealth countries £34,000,000 worth, and from non-British countries £130,000,000 worth. You are expecting that the British public is going suddenly to reverse engines in respect to these particular goods and tax itself in respect to the £130,000,000 worth of goods for the benefit of the suppliers of the £64,000,000 worth. I am slow to believe it.

Let us assume that it does this act of generosity to the Irish Free State. What is going to be the quid pro quo? It is, I gather from the mover and seconder of the motion, though it was not stated in so many words, that the Irish farmer is going to get the benefit and that, therefore, the Irish Free State will get the benefit of the enhanced prices which will accrue to them from the taxation of foreign agricultural goods entering Great Britain, and that, presumably, our farmers will be stimulated to the greater production of such goods. It is hinted, if not stated definitely, and I think that it would be almost an inevitable consequence, that Great Britain would look for some limitation in our policy of industrial development, because the more we develop industrial production the smaller the proportion of exports of manufactured goods from England will be. If we can develop production generally the total importation may not be reduced at all, but the proportionate share of manufactured goods coming from England will decline when Irish production increases. I think that there is at the bottom of this whole propaganda, especially in so far as it is taken up from the Irish Free State side, the idea that Britain being the workshop of the world, certainly of the Empire, must continue to flourish and that other countries forming the British Commonwealth must be deflected from their present intentions of manufacturing their own commodities for their own use. I think that we should resist any attempt to reduce, or stop development in that direction. Rather would I say that we have to do a great deal more than has been done to stimulate the manufacture of commodities for use within the country and to reduce the amount of such goods that are imported.

I do not think that that is going to be possible if we are caught up in this drive, this crusade, and join in any attempt to persuade the British public to do this thing, nominally on their own behalf but actually on our behalf. I think that if we take a long and not a short and narrow view of national interests we are bound to do something to develop manufacturing industries. You may have a progressive and prosperous agriculture but unless you also have manufacturing industry you are not going to have a prosperous, healthy, well-balanced nation. I think it is a narrow and a very unwise view to conceive of any co-ordination of inter-Commonwealth trade which might have the effect — which I think is designed to have the effect — of stabilising the relative positions of Great Britain and Ireland, the Free State continuing as a dairy farm supplying England, and England continuing as a manufacturing country supplying the Irish Free State. I think that we ought to correct any tendency in that direction. It would require Irish agriculture practically to double its output with its present agricultural population to bring the actual personnel of the agricultural population to a standard equal to that of Denmark to-day, and to the extent that new people go into agriculture you are reducing the possibility of that improvement in their social standard. Therefore, there is no proper ground for believing that with a developed agriculture and a non-developed industry you are going to cause this country to grow in population, in real strength and in power, because the new agricultural wealth is going to be spent, on the hypothesis of the mover and seconder of the motion, in buying increased quantities of English-manufactured goods.

A Senator

Why?

Mr. Johnson

I am asked why. Well, I say the reason why is because England is not going to give you this boon unless she gets some benefit in return, and that benefit would be something to improve her manufactures, which will be the quid pro quo for a tax on foreign agricultural produce. I do not want to leave this with the idea that I am absolutely against a co-ordination of inter-Commonwealth affairs. I am in favour of as much co-operation between nations economically, socially, and scientifically as can be obtained and I think it is possible to get a greater amount of co-operation amongst these countries than outside these countries, but I do suggest that we would be very unwise to join in any Empire economic bloc against other economic blocs, say European or pan-American blocs. An Empire economic bloc set up against the world in general is a very likely cause of future wars, and our peculiar position in relation to the United States, and the particular position of the United States in relation to this British Empire economic bloc would, in my view, mean a choice at some future time for this country, whether it was going to side with the British Empire or side with the United States in a naval war. I hope anything of that kind will never happen, but I think one of the surest ways of creating an atmosphere in the world, leading to a British Empire versus United States naval war, would be a British Empire economic unity such as is suggested in this motion, and in this present political drive in Great Britain.

My amendment asks the Seanad to delete the words "through a co-ordinated policy" of inter-Commonwealth trade, and that the Executive Council should take all practical steps to foster the development of home industries. I hope the Seanad is agreed that there should be a development of home industries. I am especially concerned, in this motion, at any rate, when I use the words home industries, with manufacturing industries. I believe the Seanad's advice in the matter whether there is to be a co-ordinated policy, whether there is agreement with the British Empire or not should be that all practical steps must be taken to foster home industries.

Mr. Connolly

I second the amendment, formally. I was rather disappointed and surprised when listening to the proposer and seconder of the motion to find that there was no practical and no convincing argument used which would influence one's mind in the direction it purports to aim at. I do not know if this motion has any official sanction, or if it is purely a development of Senator Gogarty's own economic thought, or whether it has been influenced by contacts with such as Lord Beaverbrook and Empire free traders, or different other associates that the worthy Senator may have. We have read recently, and with great interest, the conflicting views that have been in evidence in the higher political circles in England. We have read the various exchanges between Lord Beaverbrook, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lloyd George, and although they seemed very recently to be in fundamental disagreement, there seems now to be a rapprochement in the British Conservative Party and it looks as if they have all hitched their star to Empire free trade. That is their job. We have a different job, and I think, with all respect to the Senators, that it is a most unwise discussion to precipitate at this moment. I do not think the time is opportune — if any time could be opportune — for such a proposal, but since it has been raised we might as well be frank about it and face the issue. The Empire free trade policy seems to be made up of nothing more nor less than an attempt to bolster up a decayed economic system, the results of which are seen in the economic position of Great Britain to-day, and in the unemployment figures.

This economic rehabilitation of Great Britain — because this is what it means — is to be carried out at the expense of the different countries constituting the Dominions, and when we realise that, we may as well face up to the fact as to what the reaction in these Dominions is likely to be. It is true that the attitude of Canada has been exploited as regards the Empire Free Trade Party. But what are the facts? Canada's attitude is due to one cause, and to one cause only, and that cause is as a set-off against the recent tariff legislation introduced by the United States Government. Personally, I cannot see that Canada is going to surrender her whole tariff policy, even at the request of Mother England. Turning from that to Australia, nothing seems to indicate that Australia is going to make herself adaptable as a dumping ground for British manufactured productions. All the evidence is to the contrary. Her tariffs at the moment are, as Senators know, almost insuperable to foreign manufacturers, and it is not likely that she is going to surrender this most necessary arrangement or tariff barrier, which is providing her people with employment——

Sir John Keane

Question?

Mr. Connolly

——and which unquestionably has gone a long way to ease her unemployment problem. Senator Gogarty and the seconder of the motion stressed — well, I am wrong in saying they have stressed, because they have not made it clear to me — the economic advantage we are going to get. I would point out that our imports amounted from all sources in the year 1929 to £61,310,819, and our exports and reexports to £47,869,932, leaving a balance on the wrong side in our trading of £13,431,887. It is also worthy of note that in our exports are included the entire production of tractors and tractor parts from the Ford Factory. These tractors and motor parts amounted in the first four months of this year to £1,577,756, so that, instead of having an increase this year on the first four months in the export trade, we would have been down £106,657, but for the exports from Ford's.

Now we come to the Seanad. This body is supposed to represent to a degree the intelligence of the country, and is supposed to take fatherly interest in legislation. We listened to one Senator describe the factory of Ford's as a tinsmith's. That is one way of looking at it. I suggest if we had a few more tinkers of that kind we would not be worried by Empire free trade. I would like to know how the proposer and seconder imagine this Empire trade as regards Great Britain is to be divided up. Are we to assume that we are going to be the pet, the spoiled child, of Mother England when we go into that Conference, assuming that we do go into it, and I hope we never will? Do Senator Gogarty and Senator Counihan suggest that we can go in and make a good deal for advantageous trade with Great Britain as a set off against the removal — that is what it amounts to — of the protective tariffs we have placed on goods coming in here? I venture to think that such would not be likely. We have never had a good deal with that negotiator yet, and my contention is the less negotiation we have with it the better.

The simple fact is that what we have got to do in this country is to realise the home market we have at our own doors both for agriculture and manufacturing commodities. We have been reared in a tradition which stipulated that the proper balance ought to be kept between agriculture and industry, and that, too, was the basic economic idea behind Griffith's teaching. Let us be honest about it and realise that but for Griffith's economic teaching and the development of Sinn Féin this House would not be in existence. We want, therefore, to produce for our home needs, to take stock from the import list, and find out what commodities, both agricultural and manufactured, we can produce in this country. We may be very sympathetic with England in her problem. We may, as human beings, be worried about the vast human army of unemployed there at present, but it will be time enough to sit down and worry about that when we have solved our own economic problem and provided our own people with employment. To think in the terms proposed here to-day in this motion is the reverse of progressing economically. We in this Party were more or less scoffed at and turned down when we made certain proposals in regard to wheat-growing. Yet the same line of policy is at present being proposed and fostered by the Party led by Mr. Baldwin, which may or may not be in power again. The control of the trade, finances and industry of this country must be in the hands of Irish citizens, and not only that, but well-disposed citizens, people who believe in the well-being of the State. The less entanglement we have with the Empire—I am speaking economically— the better for all concerned.

The fact of the matter is that the position in Great Britain to-day, in the Empire generally, and in most of the world, is that the economic system has broken down. It has broken down in England, and, therefore, they want to make the best terms they can in the circumstances, and they want to do it at the expense of Canada, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. One does not need to be a banker or a Senator to see the position. It is a question of the volume of trade for them, a big development of manufacturing industries and the provision of employment for their people. The loss of the world market is a reality they are up against now. At the most this would only be a palliative. I am not suggesting that we should be concerned with palliatives, but even if the Imperialists look at it from that point of view it can only be a palliative and a temporary one. The system is, in my judgment, top-heavy. It is not carrying its weight, and it is not fulfilling its functions. The agitation that is now going on goes to show the machine has out-lived its usefulness and has to be scrapped. I suggest that we should not butt in now, and that what we have to try and do is to evolve our own philosophy, to try and work out our salvation in our own way.

I say that whatever Government is in power should stand against becoming involved in the Imperial machine, as we would only be an infinitesimal cypher and would cut no ice and carry no weight. There is, from the economic point of view, in my opinion, nothing facing the present Imperial machine but ruin, and I suggest that now is not the time to get tacked on to that machine when it is decaying and breaking up. I hope, therefore, that the decision of the Seanad will limit itself to the amendment proposed by Senator Johnson. I would remind the proposer and seconder of this resolution, and particularly the proposer, that there were unions proposed in this country before and that there was one union carried. If he has any historical sense, and I know he has, he can go back and refer to the history of that last union. This, to my mind, will be a greater menace than the previous union. I do not know what position he hopes to fill in history, but I would like to think he would like a more honourable one than some of the gentlemen who carried the last union. Senator Counihan expressed what I cannot describe otherwise than the grazier mentality that believes in beef and cattle and not human beings on the land. We know what we have suffered from that mentality before. I sincerely hope the Seanad will turn down any suggestions from such sources. I have just one word to say in conclusion, and that is, that in supporting Senator Johnson's amendment my line of thought is not exactly his. I am anti-Imperial, I am anti-Empire; I do not believe in Empires anywhere. I do not believe in the financial Empires we see in other parts of the world.

I believe that the duty of the present Government, or of any Government in this country, is to concentrate on the internal development of the country for its own people, its own workers and to reserve and preserve the market that exists here for its own people, to proceed to cut down imports to the lowest possible limit and make this people, as far as possible, a self-supporting people.

Sir Walter Nugent

I thought that the Resolution moved by Senator Dr. Gogarty was such a simple and attractive one that it would be agreed to almost unanimously in every part of the House. Turning over in my mind the part of the House from which opposition to it was likely to come, the first name that suggested itself to me was that of Senator Sir John Keane. I know that he is a cast-iron free trader. I hope the Senator is present, but we all know that he is never afraid to express himself. He is a picturesque figure and a member of the House whom we all admire. He will oppose anything that he believes deserves to be criticised. I hope that we will have the benefit of his views on this motion. There was one part of the House from which I felt sure no opposition to the motion could possibly come, and that was from the benches opposite. I am glad to see that the Party is well represented, because I know how concerned the members of it are about anything that would benefit the farmers. Senator Connolly described this as an unwise discussion. He seemed to me, all through his speech to realise that. We know how eloquent the Senator can be at times. We know how he loves the farmer, and if I may say so, how the farmer loves him. But if the Free State decided to remain outside the Commonwealth of Nations, I would like to hear the Senator explain to his farmer friends how they were going to benefit by being left outside the tariff wall. How is it going to benefit the farmers of this country if they cannot sell their stock and agricultural produce? What would the position of the Irish farmer be if he had to pay a high tariff in order to dispose of his produce, while Australia and Canada could send their produce, on the most favourable terms, to the British market? The Irish farmer could not sell his butter and eggs, his bacon and bullocks in Denmark or in any of the Continental countries. The Senator made a strong but unsuccessful use of the argument with regard to the non-payment of land annuities. Take, for instance, a county like Westmeath. I imagine that the farmers there would far rather be on the right side of the tariff wall and paying their land annuities than be on the wrong side of it and not able to pay anything. If the Senator's argument were carried to its logical conclusion, it would place the Irish farmer in an absolutely impossible position. If there is a Commonwealth of Nations formed and the Free State decided to remain outside of it, how on earth could farming be made to pay here?

Senator Johnson said that we were dwelling too much on the farmers. It seemed to me that the Senator, when speaking to his amendment, was not as lucid as he usually is. His amendment reads: "That the Seanad is of opinion that the Executive Council should take all practicable steps to foster the development of home industries." I am not sure what the Senator means by that. Does he mean to foster industry in every way possible except by going into the Commonwealth of Nations, or does he mean fostering it in any case even if it is necessary to go into the Commonwealth of Nations? Does he mean that if it is necessary to go into the Commonwealth of Nations that he does not object to fostering it? It seemed to me from his argument that he was rather inclined to question the first part of his amendment, and then later seemed to suggest that he did not mind this country going in. I would be glad to hear him explain what exactly he means. With regard to manufacturers, I have never been quite able to understand how it is that the view of the Labour Party in Great Britain has always been the reverse of that held by the Labour Party in the United States.

As Senators know, in the United States the strongest advocates of protection are the members of the Labour Party. Their war-cry at every election has been that they do not want to compete with the products of pauper labour in Europe. The only country that allows the products of pauper labour to come in is Great Britain. Even in the case of Great Britain, I notice that some prominent labour people there have recently altered their views on the question of protection. While the Resolution aims at fostering agriculture, I would like to know what is intended with regard to our manufacturers. Anyone familiar with labour and wage conditions knows that you cannot maintain a high standard of wages unless you give your manufacturers some protection. If you are going to maintain a high standard of living, you must give some protection to your manufacturers. I congratulate Senator Gogarty on bringing forward his Resolution. I hope, when Senator Johnson is replying on his amendment, that he will clear up some of the points to which I have referred.

Mr. O'Connor

I listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches made by the Senators who have already spoken on the subject before the House. Some three or four years ago, in consequence of a statement that I made here, some misconception arose as to my views on protection. I have been a protectionist all my life, and I am still one. My idea is that I would put a tax on all manufactured articles coming into the country. I would not have any discrimination at all, but would apply protection in the case of all manufactured articles coming into the country. During a pretty long life I have had a trade connection with England. I have travelled a good deal through the country, and know the conditions there for a considerable time. I have a distinct recollection of the time when trade was so prosperous in England that she was known as the great manufacturing nation for practically the whole world.

While Canada and Australia and South Africa were new to industry, England had the road open to her, she was manufacturing for the world, but since mass production has come into being many industries that England had a monopoly of fifty years ago are carried on in other parts of the world, and her colonies are producing and manufacturing for themselves. Instead of being customers of Great Britain, these countries are dumping into Great Britain manufactured articles to the destruction of British industry. England is unable to cope with the result of this great change, and it is not a bit wonderful to see bodies like the bankers, who were always in favour of free trade, now amongst the first to pronounce themselves in favour of protection in the sense of imperial preference. It is only a question of time. As far as farming is concerned, I have very little hope of any encouragement from Senator Johnson. The only thing I should like to say is that I wish he had started farming thirty years ago so that he could see the return from it to-day. Whatever takes place with regard to Empire preference the farmers in this country can expect very little for some time to come. They cannot hope for anything except it comes in an indirect way.

It is said that the first gesture of kindness or generosity that came from England was at the time of the first Land Act in 1870. When a Land Bill was first talked of to benefit the Irish farmers O'Connell said: "You might as well expect the butchers to write out the regulations for Lent as to expect any Bill from Irish landlords for the benefit of the tenant farmers." It is the same with regard to trade and industry in England so far as Ireland is concerned. It is exactly a parallel case. I have no hope that anything except what will suit England will be meted out to us, but if it helps England, I hold the view that we might expect something to come out of it in the sense that England may be in a difficulty and require help from Ireland. Eighty-two per cent. of the meat supplied in London is foreign. For the last three weeks 250,000 carcases a week have arrived in Liverpool. When we compare our resources with these foreign supplies we are nowhere. We must state our case fairly and squarely. To talk about England's difficulty being Ireland's opportunity is a thing of much deeper concern than what we are dealing with here. Our expectation is that in this matter something important may occur, and that Ireland may benefit.

[Senator Dowdall took the Chair.]

Mr. Comyn

Last week Senator Gogarty came back from London with a resolution in his pocket which he circulated among members of the Seanad. In the interval he has changed the terms of his resolution, which now stands on the Paper to the effect: "That the Seanad is of opinion that the Executive Council should take all practicable steps to foster the development of home industry through a co-ordinated policy of inter-Commonwealth trade." That is how the matter stands at present. When called on to-day the Senator was absent. I thought myself he was going to make further changes in the resolution, because I notice that the controller of this combination who has advocated this new policy changes from day to day. It is necessary for us to understand what the policy is. I may say incidentally that if the Senator expected to get a lot of information from us we have got a lot of information from him. What is that policy? It is advocated by two newspaper proprietors — Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook. As for Lord Rothermere he changes his mind from day to day.

The vital question so far as we are concerned in this whole policy, is whether food imported into England from foreign countries is to be taxed or not. That is the vital question for us. What does Lord Rothermere say? On Monday he says: "Yes. Food is to be taxed." On Tuesday he says: "Food is not to be taxed." On Wednesday he says: "Oh no, we are going to have a bounty on English produced food." I may tell the Seanad that would be distinctly inimical to Ireland; not good for us. On Thursday he has another policy. On Friday there is another variation. On Saturday he takes a holiday, and on Sunday morning he comes out in his Sunday paper and you do not know what he means. That is Lord Rothermere.

I see that Senator Sir John Keane is interested in my comment as to Lord Rothermere's Sunday paper. However, I adhere to what I said. On one page you will find one policy and on another page you will find a wholly different policy advocated. Lord Beaverbrook seems to be more consistent. I find that during the last day of the by-election at Norfolk he allowed to drop from the skies a leaflet — I wonder was Senator Gogarty there and back since — in which it was stated that there would be no increase in the price of essential articles of food. That is their policy. If that is their policy how can this country benefit? No increase in the price of beef, no increase in the price of eggs, no increase in the price of butter. These are all essential articles of food. How then can this country benefit? Unless there is an increase in the price of the essential articles of food it cannot benefit. How can this country lose by the new policy? I am only saying this because we have here a Minister who is going to the Imperial Conference. He has to argue his case and to fight his case, and it is just as well for him to know what the opinion of this country is on a question, even though he has to learn it sometimes from people who hold different views from himself. What do we stand to lose? We stand to lose the levying of the tariffs that we have already imposed. We stand to lose the advantages to industry which we are likely to gain from tariffs which it is necessary still further to impose for the purpose of increasing our local industries.

What we say is this, that even on a system of free trade, even with such a system, it is allowable, in the case of a country like this, whose industries have been entirely swept away, that tariffs can and should be imposed for the purpose of fostering industries in the early stages of their development. Senator Gogarty, in his speech, said that he would state his case, I think he said, with the impartiality of an Irish bullock. I think these were the words he used. The Senator is usually brilliant, but the case he had to argue on the present occasion was so bad that really, without any offence to him, I think that he rather approached it from the angle of a well-fed bullock from the plains of Meath. I would like to approach the consideration of this question from the point of view, not of an Irish bullock, but of an Irish ploughman and, let me say, I am near enough to that character.

Even an Irish ploughman without much education or without much culture listening to Senator Gogarty could, I think, find out exactly what he meant. I will tell you why. There is to be no increase in the price of essential articles of food. No, none, at all.

How, then, is there to be an advantage to this country? There is to be no advantage to this country, but Senator Gogarty, in his speech, holds out a threat, and here is the threat. It is plainly stated in Senator Gogarty's speech that there is to be a way in which this system is to be carried out without a tax on food. They will not tax food in England. Englishmen will not allow them to tax food. They will never carry a measure in England taxing the food of Englishmen. Here is what they will do — Senator Gogarty let the cat out of the bag — they are to select the sources of food. There is to be combined purchasing. They are to offer Ireland the alternative of "level your tariffs, resign yourself for ever to pastures or we will go elsewhere for our cattle, our butter, our eggs and our wool." That is the meaning of it. I was watching for this. I listened to Senator Gogarty's speech with considerable attention. It was a clever speech. He just said as much as he wanted to say, and he said it as unobtrusively as he meant to say it. But he said one thing — that unless you consent to level the tariffs already imposed, they will boycott our agricultural products. If that is the challenge put to this country we have only this to say: "We have suffered before; we mean to be friendly with all nations; there is a number of our people in England; there is a considerable number of our people in Lancashire, in the North of England. We do not like to see them disemployed, we do not like to see them depressed. But when there is a threat of boycott of our products held out to us, then all we say is this: ‘We will, as far as we can, try to endure that boycott.'"

But how can it be carried out? What do we buy from England? Last year we bought altogether from foreign countries £61,000,000 worth of goods. Of these £61,000,000 worth, £47,800,000 came from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and £13,432,000 from all other countries in the world. Of the latter sum £1,889,000 worth of goods were supplied to us by the Dominions, leaving less than £12,000,000 worth supplied to us by all other nations. What does England want by this system that has been adumbrated and stated in various ways and changed from day to day? England is already getting £47,000,000 worth of our trade. It wants the additional £12,000,000 worth. I might say this, that Great Britain could supply this £12,000,000 worth of goods, because I have looked through this book of exports and imports. I find on looking through that that Great Britain could supply every article that Germany, the United States, the Colonies and other countries have been supplying to us. Therefore having got £47,000,000 worth of our trade they want the additional £12,000,000. They have nothing to offer us in return except a threat, that they will select the place where they are going to buy their agricultural produce.

I do not know whether Senator Gogarty represents the views of this great combination of men in England. We can, to a certain extent, understand that perhaps he does. He has been in rather close association with them. In the course of the speech he made another observation which seemed to me to show that he is in intimate touch with the gentlemen on the other side because he said: "Oh, England can put a ring of cabbage gardens outside London, and outside that ring England can put a ring of dairy farms," and I suppose outside that ring a ring of ranches; that England itself can supply its own agricultural products. That is the policy expressed by Senator Gogarty's friend, J.H. Thomas, on more than one occasion.

It is really not a matter with which we are concerned at the moment. When the plan becomes law so far as England is concerned then we will consider it from the point of view of the best interests of Ireland. But I would like the Minister who is here present to understand that there is another barrier in the path. We have a political barrier across the face of this country, in the supposed interests of England but not in the real interests of England. I would like to say that it is my opinion that so long as that political barrier remains there is no chance that the people of the south of Ireland will consent to the lowering of the economic barrier. I think I know a good deal about the feelings of my countrymen. My business has brought me amongst them. My business has brought me from time to time into very intimate touch with them and I think I can say that while that political barrier remains the economic barrier will remain also. I am only giving that as an opinion formed from long experience. It may be of use to the Minister in the Imperial Conference. It may also be of use to him to know that threats do not appal us, that with a fertile soil and a healthy people we have resources, and if to-morrow morning England shut her gates against as we could live. She depends more on us than we do on her. But while I say that, I say that we have sympathy with the workers, in Lancashire and in the North of England particularly, and if England can get out of her troubles we will be very well pleased. I have very little more to say on this question. I am sorry that I have been so dull, but I think I have stated as fairly as was possible the attitude which this country, I believe, will ultimately adopt on this question.

during the past six or eight years he had had many inquiries from the heads of big industrial concerns as to the possibility of establishing similar industries to the Ford factory in this country and that he had supplied them with all the information available, and he had no doubt that in the near future these people would follow up the inquiries they had made with some tangible results,

are we going to embark on a policy which will militate against that kind of operation?

If there is one thing that is obvious it is the necessity for manufacturing development simultaneously with agricultural development. We have the opportunity and the means for that. The essentials for economic development seem to me to be, first, external peace, and, second, control within the State by the legitimate authority in the State of the factors governing economic development. These things we have secured by virtue of the Treaty of 1921. Everything necessary to control and develop our economic life we have. The third essential is internal tranquillity. The only menace to that is in a direction to which it is hardly necessary to point. It is represented in this House as well as in the other House. Given these three things, and with an intelligent policy visualising what is required to produce a stable, growing economic State, I think there is no reason why this country should not be prosperous.

I made that digression for this reason: Senator Counihan suggested that this House should instruct the Minister to advocate an Empire Free Trade Policy at the Imperial Conference. I hope this House will do nothing of the kind. I think it is premature to raise this matter. I think we ought to consider matters very carefully before we enter into international commitments or even adopt a kind of State attitude which would have a tendency to stereotype our existing economic position or hamper our State initiative in matters of economic enterprise. So far as the policy of the Empire Free Traders is concerned, it seems to me that that would be the effect which it would have upon this country. The pamphlet I have here will probably be the Bible of Senator Gogarty's new party. It is entitled "The Crusade for Imperial Free Trade," and it is written by Lord Beaverbrook. I think that is one of the first publications of this gentleman on this subject. It represents one of his first attempts to outline his policy, and it is very illuminating and well worthy of consideration. There are some passages in it which we ought to read, mark and inwardly digest before we allow ourselves to be stampeded on what, I think, are misleading promises into this movement, which is not a Free State movement. It is a purely British movement, and it is a perfectly legitimate movement for the British. It is not a Dominion movement. So far, there has been no articulate expression of opinion by any responsible representative of any Dominion on those lines. It is a British solution of a British problem. British statesmen and British economists are not altruists, and in this matter they are solely concerned, as they are entitled to be, with the interests of their own people and the growing problems of their own people. This pamphlet of the Empire Free Trade Party suggests that the farmers of the Empire should be induced to expand their output, and it says: "The best inducement is to guarantee them a steady demand for their products. It is proposed to give such a guarantee by imposing a tax on foreign meat and wheat entering this country if in return the Dominions will allow our claim for the free entry of British goods into their territories."

I draw attention to the words: "the free entry of British goods into their territories." Are we going to dismantle our tariffs? I am not so much arguing now for tariffs as arguing the question whether or not we should allow our State policy to be moulded by these external influences which the Empire Free Trade movement in England represents. It is necessary to think in terms of cattle and dairy produce on this question, but those are not exhaustive of the subject. We have got to think in terms of human beings and in terms of economic life within this State — in terms of economic conditions which will enable the human beings born in this State to get a chance of existing in this State. If you accept this policy of free entry of British manufactures into this country, what follows? It means the removal of our tariff barriers, the flooding of this country with these foreign products and the decrease of sources of employment within the State. We may take it for granted that a simultaneous improvement in the market for which the agriculturists cater is not going to compensate for that economic loss on the manufacturing side. This phase of our State's life we have to consider not in terms of an Empire, but in terms of State interests. We have got to realise that while agriculture in this State has been brought as near as possible to perfection, we have not yet secured that industrial development which is essential to provide for that aspect of life within the State which agriculture does not and cannot provide for.

Another paragraph of this statement by Lord Beaverbrook is also interesting —"First and foremost it must be laid down that it is not, and never can be, a part of the policy of the Empire Crusaders to destroy any industry that now exists." That seems perfectly fair on the face of it, but we have to bear in mind that, so far as manufacturing industry is concerned, this country is practically a virgin country.

We have to consider not merely the existence of the industries that are in being here but the desirability and the probability of industries coming into existence and I can see great danger to one phase of the Shannon development by this policy submerging our industrial life because I have always looked at the development of the Shannon Scheme as something that would go a long way to meet that deficiency which we have in the matter of native coal and which would provide that power which would be a great stimulus to industrial development. If England is to be the country to provide us with all our necessary manufactures I see a very poor prospect of the Shannon Scheme other than as a light proposition playing any great part in the economy of this State.

Senator Gogarty dwelt largely on the great market we were going to get. I find in this pamphlet by the way that the name of this country is never once mentioned. I find that Lord Beaverbrook indicates the supplies of foodstuffs that England can avail of from Australia, New Zealand and from Canada, and that this movement means intensified access on the part of these other Dominions to the British market. I fail to see how the idea is going to work out so beautifully, so simply and so easily for the Saorstát as Senator Gogarty would represent. I was anxious to express these opinions because I do not wish this debate to pass with any misleading impression as to how I stood in the matter. I do not regard Lord Beaverbrook as our economic apostle. In these matters of State development, of national regard to economics, I make no hesitation in avowing myself now as always as much more inclined to follow the lines of thought indicated by Arthur Griffith than those indicated by Lord Beaverbrook. I quite agree with Senator Johnson when he says that this Commonwealth is not an economic unit, not a unit in any sense. It is a series of units that have varied interests. Sometimes they have divergent interests and the object so far as I can see of the Empire free trade movement is to secure that Britain will be the predominant partner in this matter, that the idea of co-equality will be nullified and that we shall follow meekly in whatever lines of economic development the predominant partner indicates is best for us. I say to attempt to pursue a policy on those lines is very dangerous to the cordial relations between the different members of the Commonwealth in the future. We have entered this Commonwealth on the basis of equality. We have accepted the status as one of sovereign freedom. I for one believe that it is such. I believe that at any rate we should hesitate and that we should be slow before we work up any enthusiasm for this new movement which has come like a flash and which may disappear just as quickly. I know we have a weakness in this country of trying to follow any new fad, fashion or vogue that may arise in any other country, but that is not the mood nor the inclination of reasonable beings. Before we commit ourselves here by resolution or through our Minister at the Imperial Conference into an attitude of this kind I think we would require a good deal more information and discussion than we have had yet in this matter and for these reasons I intend to vote for Senator Johnson's amendment.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

With regard to the other side of the case, I think that everybody will agree that the evils of protection are very much lessened if you widen the area. If you had a clean slate to-morrow and could start with the whole Empire as an economic unit you would be in an analogous position to the United States and, I think, could develop a bloc under the most favourable conditions. In America every State has its own industry. Some are industrial, some are agricultural, but the whole country builds up an aggregate condition of prosperity, each area developing according to its natural conditions and developing its indigenous industries. If you had a policy of extreme economic isolation you would have one State protected against the other. You would have Oregon protected against California and you would have internal friction and competition under the most disadvantageous conditions. I hope the Minister, when he does go to the Conference, will go with an open mind, not in any way committed to economic isolation and not walking blindly into an economic bloc. I can conceive remotely a very favourable offer in return for the stabilising of tariffs. I think the country would wish it, and the Minister could come back here and decide it.

Mr. O'Farrell

Last week we had what is known as the Bankers Manifesto. To-day we have had this debate. I wonder which will Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere consider the more important event. Incidentally, I notice that an eminent banker and the Chairman of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, Sir Josiah Stamp, has almost totally disagreed with those of the bankers who signed the much-vaunted Manifesto. It is really difficult to treat this motion seriously, and I cannot imagine anybody, as Senator Comyn did, lashing himself into a fury of patriotic fervour, talking about the alleged threats to this country by England and denouncing the motion as another injustice to Ireland. The proposal regarding Empire free trade has, so far as one can see, as adherents, two millionaire lords in England who command a great Press syndicate. Denouncing this as a proposal to which the people of Great Britain have committed themselves, is really going very much in advance of the times. No English party has committed itself to Empire free trade and, as a serious Assembly, we should not proceed to launch an attack on another country simply because of a proposal on the part of a few people, however wealthy or important they may be.

Speaking from a serious point of view. I think it would be a mistake to weld the various States of the British Commonwealth into one economic unit. Such a move would be looked upon with disfavour and suspicion by the rest of the world, and it would, as Senator Johnson stated, tend to new alignments, politically as well as economically, which might eventually result in world wars which are, in these days, inspired far more quickly from economic reasons than through mere desire of conquest. Once you establish the British Commonwealth as one economic unit you very quickly get the rest of the world to look upon it as one political unit, and to treat it accordingly in all diplomatic relationships and negotiations. From our point of view also such an alliance would take away from our power or might hamper or restrict to a degree the making of trade treaties with other countries which might be of a beneficial character. As far as I know, Britain at the present time takes all the agricultural produce of various kinds that we offer her, and all the complaint we have to make is that the price is not high enough. We cannot hope for a better price except by the consumers in Britain paying a higher price for what they consume. I cannot conceive a policy of that kind appealing to the electorate in Great Britain. Then, as other Senators have said, what advantages have we to offer to the rest of the Commonwealth for giving us a preference in regard to agricultural produce? We can only agree to take more of their products than we are taking. We are concerned economically only with Great Britain. The rest of the British Commonwealth is too distant from us, and we have no shipping lines of our own. Our goods have to be carried in British ships or the ships of other countries. What they have to export is mainly agricultural produce which we ourselves produce in abundance, and they certainly are not going to form a market for our industrial products other than agriculture. The tariff walls of Australia, which are sky-high, are not going to tumble down like the walls of Jericho merely at the blast of the trumpet of Empire free trade.

This is one of the most preposterous proposals that have been put forward seriously in our time. It is really a stunt got up for the purpose of dishing the present leader of the Conservative Party, and it would not be seriously put forward by anybody who would analyse the proposal and see what the advantages are likely to be. The only people who would seem to gain by the proposal would be those in other parts of the British Commonwealth outside Great Britain. Where Great Britain's gain comes in it is almost impossible to see, except we are foolish enough to believe that the other parts of the British Commonwealth are going to disregard or set aside altogether their desire for industrial development.

How this motion can be constituted another injustice to Ireland I cannot see. I wish we would not have statements such as that made by one speaker who said that England sells to us at her own price and buys from us at her own price. Statements like that are preposterous. We buy from England not because we love her, but because it suits us to buy. We buy because we can get from England goods probably at a cheaper rate than we would get them from other countries. Similarly, England buys from us because it suits her to do so. It is childish to talk as if we were great benefactors supplying food to the workers in industrial England, who manufacture goods to put our people out of employment. The fact of the matter is that it is purely a business arrangement. It is an unsatisfactory one from our point of view to the extent that we are not able to manufacture everything we desire, but it is an eminently satisfactory one from the point of view that we have a great market near at hand for the greater part of our agricultural produce.

I approach this question from the viewpoint of a business man rather than for sentimental reasons because sentiment is very apt to make people's heads very light and unsteady. I think it would be utterly unwise for this House to pass any resolution which would prejudice us in any way or hamper our representatives at any Imperial or international conference that may be held in the future. It would be unwise in view of the obvious advantage to be derived from leaving Ministers free to act in what they consider the best interests of the State, having regard to conditions as they will then exist and also in view of the fact that any agreement arrived at will have to be ratified by the Oireachtas. For those reasons it would not be wise to pass such a resolution as this.

Mr. MacLoughlin

I think that we are all agreed on at least one point, namely, the extraordinary complexity of this question. It is, in fact, so complex that I, not being an economic expert, do not feel equal to arguing it. I propose, however, to give briefly my opinion from the rather narrow and selfish point of view of one of the smaller fry of Irish manufacturers who have to sell their wares not only in the home market but across the Channel where there is such fierce competition and also so much unemployment at present. I think that the fallacy underlying the arguments of most of our protectionists in this country is that they pay no regard at all to the market across the water. They concentrate on the home market and they seem to regard a market of two and three-quarter millions of people as of more advantage than one of forty millions of people and they think that once they put a tariff wall around it, the economic position of the country is secure. I have advocated tariffs here as one of the means of combating unemployment. I still advocate them for that reason but I must confess that sometimes I have misgivings about tariffs when I find them advocated as a panacea for all our ills. And when I find total prohibition preached by men like Senator O'Connor and Deputy de Valera, I do not know where I am. Then we have Deputy Lemass coming out with this declaration in that famous interview which he gave to the organ of Empire Free Trade. He said:—

"So long as Britain remains the best market for our agricultural produce we will be prepared to facilitate and, perhaps, even to encourage, by granting preferential rates of duty, the importation of British goods not capable of being produced here in preference to the goods of other nations which take little or nothing from us."

As Senator Johnson asked what have we to give in return for the taxation in England of non-Empire products? Deputy Lemass tells us what we will give. I think that, coming from Deputy Lemass, that is a very specific declaration in favour of Empire Free Trade. Of course, his colleagues here will not have anything to do with it. They seem to think that we can get on without the Empire, and Senator Connolly referred to it as decaying and breaking up. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagreed with a lot of what Senator Comyn said, I was glad to hear him say that it gave us no satisfaction to find decay or break-up in England. We should realise that if there is prosperity or if there is depression in England it reacts here, and, so long as our geographical position is what it is, we cannot be economically independent of England.

The Danish Consul in London, when he heard of this scheme of Empire Free Trade, said that if it ever materialised the only thing for Denmark to do was to join the British Empire. The Danes are a practical people and are not swayed by sentimentality. Not only does prosperity or depression in England react here but the fiscal system there is very important for us. We cannot interfere and dictate to England what fiscal system she shall adopt, and I do not think that this debate was intended as an indication of that kind. Two remedies to meet the situation are being proposed across the Channel at present, and they have grave concern for us. One is the question of safeguarding and the other is the policy of Empire Free Trade. The Conservative Party are inclined to go in for safeguarding, but the policy of Empire Free Trade is being forced upon them. If the policy of safeguarding is put into force it will have disastrous effects on a number of small manufacturers here who sell in Great Britain. Some of them would not be able to keep open for longer than four months in the year, while others would have to shut down entirely. Faced with this menace, a number of manufacturers with whom I have been talking would prefer Empire Free Trade, especially if it meant the throwing open of the markets of the Commonwealth in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

The objection that has been put forward by Senator Milroy, Senator Connolly and others, is that if we go into a scheme of Empire free trade our small industries will again be exposed to the intensive competition of their more highly-equipped and better organised British rivals. My experience is that this competition has only become intensive since the war, when the world markets were shut down, especially those of the Commonwealth. If they were again thrown open competition would become much less intense. Certainly, so far as I am concerned with the industries which I am trying to keep up in this country, I would prefer to give up the small tariff of 15 per cent. under which we are operating for the prospect of open markets in the Dominions. A city like Capetown, Johannesburg, Toronto, or Ottawa would give us more orders in a week than we would get in the home market in twelve months. We are told that these people will not remove their tariff barriers. I would not agree to any modification or abandonment of our tariffs unless there was modification and abandonment all round, for, just as free trade has become a failure because it is not free trade all round, so Empire free trade would be a failure if it were not free trade all round. At present no one can say what it is going to be. No one can tell what is going to happen. When you find life-long free traders like ex-Chancellor MacKenna declaring for the taxation of foreign goods anything may happen. Whether we are free traders or protectionists we should realise the tremendous advantage which this country would obtain if Danish bacon and butter and Argentine beef were taxed in England. I think that that is something that is well worth making an effort to secure. I have spoken in this way as a business man, anxious to promote Irish industries and to suppress unemployment in the Saorstát. Senator Comyn spoke about political barriers in this country. As a politician. I am not without hope that if Empire free trade were adopted and applied to all parts of this country, its healing effects might do away with that political barrier and eventually lead to the unification of the country.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

There are two very refreshing points about this debate. The first is that it has been conducted entirely in an atmosphere in which it is realised that we are completely free to do what we like concerning Empire free trade. There has been no implication in this case — an implication to which I have often listened here — that our hands are in some way tied. There is not the slightest suspicion thrown on the full economic freedom which this country has, at the moment, to do what it likes. The second point is that there has been no implication or insinuation in this House that the matter is going to be decided otherwise than by Irishmen thinking of what is best for this country. There has been very little suggestion, excepting one single implication coming from a Senator obsessed with a slave mind, that in this matter there is going to be any giving away, or selling some advantage now possessed without adequate return. There is no suggestion that this matter is going to be treated other than from the viewpoint of what is best for this country, industrially and agriculturally.

This is a wide motion and there has been a wide debate upon it. It is a matter which cannot be concluded at the moment, because the policy is so ill-defined that no response to it can be definite. What is the outstanding feature of Empire free trade as pushed in England at the moment? The majority, I should say, of one big political party and, at least, sections of the other two political parties, are facing up to this question will they decide at long last to favour a policy which imposes a tax on food? At the moment, that position is safeguarded — people are fearful about it — by putting the phrase "foreign" in front of "food." The English people are definitely coming to the point of deciding whether they will or will not adopt a policy which will lead to the taxation of food. With regard to the taxation of foreign food, I think that there is very little doubt as to the decision. When that decision is taken we will have to make up our minds, considering only our own interests, as to whether it is much better for us to have our food products defined as "foreign" for British purposes or defined as "Commonwealth."

We will have to see what is offered in return for that, and to see what we are going to lose on the industrial and on the manufacturing side if we desire to have our foods described as Commonwealth and not foreign. Senator Comyn said as regards tariffs that those imposed are "few, too small, wholly inadequate, and wrongly administered." I have made calculations before — somewhat arbitrary in character—on tariffs; I give these again here. If one takes the import list as it was in 1923, and makes a division, roughly into articles that cannot be tariffed and those that might be tariffed the division is, to my mind, a fifty-fifty one. We in 1924-25 tariffed 50 per cent. of the articles that could be tariffed. By taxing 50 per cent. we have put 13,000 people into new employment. We have actually put more. We have probably put 20,000 into direct employment, but scaling that figure down to terms of full-time employment we get a figure of 13,000 new entrants to full-time employment directly secured by tariffs, and indirectly employed 3,000 to 5,000 more. The indirect employment was probably more in the early days. 16,000 people have been placed on the basis of whole-time employment by the imposition of tariffs on 50 per cent. of what I would call tariffable imports.

Supposing we tariffed the other 50 per cent. what is the likelihood of further employment? My opinion is that we would not get a corresponding 13,000 new entrants into industrial occupations. I take the numbers previously claimed by tariff applicants as likely to ensue from tariffs now given, and I compare that with the 13,000 actually in employment; and I scale down what is claimed in the remaining industries by the difference I have found to exist between promise and performance in the group of articles already tariffed and I estimate that there might be an additional 10,000 employed if we tariffed the rest — at some cost to the consumer. In this connection I refer the House to the report of the debate on the 4th of June in this year in the Dáil. It gives the best view my Department have been able to get of the result of tariffs on industries on which tariffs have been imposed. There are a certain number of groups of articles on which there is really no cost to the consumer, and which if an Irishman likes he can get here as cheap and of as good a quality as an Englishman can in England. Over a certain other range of articles there is an increased cost to the consumer, but they are unfortunately two or three of the larger groups, and include boots and shoes, wearing apparel and furniture. Spreading that over all the tariffed articles there is some cost to the consumer for getting 13,000 or 16,000 people into employment. If we had a complete tariff ring around the Free State we might have an additional 10,000 in employment at a greater cost to the consumer. I stress this point —"at a greater cost to the consumer"— because we took the easy tariffs that would lead to employment, and that seemed not to impose any great expense on the consumer. Those left over are the more extravagant tariffs, tariffs which would impose a relatively greater cost to the consumer than those already tariffed. We might get 10,000 additional into employment at a greater cost to the consumer if we had a complete tariff barrier. On the other hand let us consider three existing industries and their peculiar position. Fords gave employment to 7,000 people up to a month ago, and will again. Jacobs employ 3,000. There are no less than 2,500 of these employed on the export side, and 500 on the home trade. The proportion might in fact be worse from the point of view of home consumption than what I have said. Divide Guinness in the same way. In these three industries we have 10,000 people at the minimum employed without one penny cost to the consumer. If we had a complete tariff ring around us with the situation that we see in Europe, America and the British Commonwealth, are we likely to retain Jacobs, Guinness and Fords? If not, we have to balance the loss of 10,000 men employed at no cost to the consumer, with the best we would get in return — that is another 10,000 employed in other industries we might tariff at a cost to the consumer. I see the situation facing us that we cannot keep aloof from all the combinations now forming, or if we do the only nation that is going to suffer is ourselves. We must be in a European bloc, or have attachments with the United States or the pan-American bloc, or with the British Commonwealth of Nations' bloc. Where do we take our stand? What is the situation in Europe that one sees developing in the conferences in Geneva? There were three big conferences held in 1929. One dealt with the removal of import and export prohibitions, the second with a tariff truce, and the third with the equal treatment of foreigners, under the last any foreigner going to a country to live and complying with the Aliens Act must be put on a par commercially, financially, in every way, with the natives of the country. These conventions have not come to a definite result yet, but the tendency in Europe is reflected in these three conventions—a tariff truce, equal treatment for foreigners and the wiping away of import and export prohibitions. There is a certain European bloc forming, and also an American group. The United States of Europe may not come to anything, but behind it is this anti-tariff move backed by most of the industrialised States of Europe. We fit into that somewhere possibly.

Do we fit into the American group? Does the distance prevent us? Does the American tariff system prevent us? Does the American system of most-favoured-nation trade treaty help, or prevent, a system whereby if they open the door to any article we manufacture they open it to the same article manufactured by any country in the world? Are we likely to get inside that barrier because of the sentiment arising from the number of our people in the United States being likely to overcome that economic barrier? There is a British Commonwealth of Nations' group. We have England lying close beside us, definitely our market at the moment, and likely to be our market for many years unless there is going to be some abrupt disturbance, and if there is to be a sudden disturbance that is going to tell very heavily on the people of this country. Where do we make a choice? We cannot make a choice in favour of the British Commonwealth if the terms would be, as Senator Johnson apprehends, that we would drop all idea of manufacturing industry and become only a garden of England. We do not make any bargain on these terms. We would jump at a bargain which would give preferential treatment for our agricultural produce, and allow us to retain and to build up further tariffs on manufactured goods. But we are as likely to get the one offered as we are to accept the other. The true position, as Senator Sir John Keane says, lies between the two. It is on the details that we will make up our minds as to whether there is a good bargain, a bad bargain or an indifferent bargain. If it is wholly bad we will have nothing to do with it. If it is good we will come and discuss it here, and if it is indifferent we will try to improve it.

There is no question of making up our minds at the moment as to what the position is likely to be. Even if we were able, by opting for the British Commonwealth of Nations' group, to ensure such a situation with regard to agricultural development that there would be no unemployed in the country, I would not recommend the acceptance of it simply on that basis. It has been said by the founder of American economic supremacy, Hamilton, if you have not diversity in your economic life you are not going to have a properly developed nation in any way. It would be a good thing if we could have a healthy agricultural State balanced by a healthy industrial State. But we do not rule all the circumstances. We have to pick and choose. We may have to make a bargain. What we should aim at is possibly another matter and, as Senator Milroy said, it should be considered in terms of human beings fully occupied at employment suited to them, and I would add with some diversity in their occupation. Diversity is essential for the proper equipment of the people.

Let us consider this on another basis. We have a large emigration problem. If we are to go into any bargain it should be concluded on proper lines. There should be some advertence to the fact that there are born here more people than employment can be found for by agriculture in its present state and industries that are tariffed, and unless some consideration is given to that situation when a bargain comes to be struck we cannot get a bargain wholly satisfactory to the people. Whether we will get that or not remains to be seen. I have no great fear in going into a conference with an open mind, and letting it be known beforehand that we go there looking for our best advantage, measured in terms of employed people, employed in diversified occupations.

Senator Connolly stressed that we should keep away from negotiations and bargains. He said that the foundation of this House was Griffith's policy. It was. Pursuing his own policy, Griffith went to a conference and came away with economic freedom. There is no question, any more than in the case of ourselves, of the sturdy people of South Africa, Canada or Australia bargaining only for English advantage. People who have been in contact with representatives from South Africa know that they have as distinct a national consciousness as the people of this country, and in Canada there has emerged a distinct national consciousness. Australians and New Zealanders have as sound an economic point of view about making their country self-sufficient as this country has. When representatives of these countries are gathered together there is not much danger of a bargain being struck which is only of advantage to Great Britain.

I am glad this debate has taken place, but I do not think it will lead to anything conclusive. No one expects that there could be, at this point, anything conclusive. A policy is developing in England at the moment. A barrier to that policy is that there are people who are frightened by a tax, for the first time announced, on food. We have to see that policy when finally constructed, and we will have to decide whether we want our food exports to be counted as foreign food or Commonwealth food, and what are the advantages and the disadvantages arising from either of these descriptions, and what opportunities we have to get the best terms.

Mr. Comyn

On a point of order. One of the greatest industrial geniuses in the world—Mr. Ford— has been referred to in a way that might be thought disparaging.

Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Dr. Gogarty

In regard to this matter the trouble was largely over the word "Empire." Senator Johnson said that I was caught in the drive for Empire unity. The question of Empire unity, diplomatic, naval or military, has nothing to do with this subject, which is a matter of providing a market, and we are talking of the only existing market. Senator Connolly referred to unions, and said I might have regard to the time that I might possibly be looked upon as a Castlereagh. I am not in the habit of adjusting my toga for a corridor in the future. I think a Party with a leader in a glasshouse should be the last to throw stones. No one in this country is going to confront a farmer who is the chief inhabitant with the suggestion that his produce should be labelled "foreign." That is all I wished to bring out. I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble of giving such an excellent exposition, and I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Do you withdraw your amendment?

Mr. Johnson

It seems to have disappeared.

The Seanad adjourned sine die at 7.45 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Jul 1930