THE POLICY of protectionism did not have to wait until after the Wall Street crash to be introduced in Ireland but began to be imposed shortly after the formation of the Free State.
Although it was an economic policy with the worthy aim of creating jobs, it was also a political instrument based on the nationalist article of faith that British rule had suppressed Irish manufacturing and forced a concentration on agriculture to provide cheap food for its own workers. Unsurprisingly, The Irish Timesdidn't buy this and, in an editorial on the latest Free State budget, gave its reasons.
Free State Industries
The new protective tariffs which were introduced last week in the Free State Budget have revived British interest in Irish industry, and [minister for finance] Mr [Ernest] Blythe’s proposals are being discussed keenly in the London Press.
The lecture which was given at the City of London College last evening by Mr EJ Riordan of the Free State Ministry for Industry and Commerce may help the British public to a better understanding of the economic problems with which the Free State Government is faced.
Mr Riordan prefaced his lecture with a dissertation on the economic evils of British rule in this country. For nearly a century and a quarter, he declared, the people of Ireland had no voice in the framing of their economic policy. England forced them to concentrate virtually all their attention on the development of their agriculture in order that they might feed her population and, at the same time, be prevented from the promotion of manufacturing industries which would be likely to compete against English concerns.
In consequence of this policy, Mr Riordan affirms, Ireland was unable to maintain her surplus population with the result that between 1852 and 1911 nearly 4,500,000 people emigrated from this country. She was cut off from the world, being compelled to do all her trade via England . . .
Mr Riordan does not explain how under the “old, repressive system” Ulster was able to become one of the wealthiest manufacturing areas in Europe, or how in the South great brewing, distilling and biscuit-making firms managed to secure their pre-eminent positions in the industrial world.
The past, however, cannot be recalled, and it is in Mr Riordan’s remarks about the present and the future that we are chiefly interested. At the moment, he says, industry in the Free State is in a depressed condition, and unemployment rarely has been so rife. He attributes that melancholy circumstance partly to the fact that the Free State is, or was, unprotected and is being used as a dumping ground for foreign goods. On the basis of the trade returns for the first two months of the present year he estimates that the Free State imports goods to the annual value of some £12,5000,000 which could be produced within its own borders. The annual value of imported footwear is nearly £1,800,000; of soap and candles nearly £500,000; of confectionery and chocolate preparations roughly £650,000.
These are the goods which Mr Blythe has chosen for his protective duties and it will be interesting to see, at the end of, say, two years, to what extent their import will have decreased . . .
By all means let us have Irish industries if they will provide the consumer with the commodities which he requires at a price that will not be greater than competing prices for commodities of equal quality; but they ought not to be contemplated on any other terms.
It is ridiculous to expect the Free State farmer to pay fancy prices for everything merely for the academic pleasure of knowing that it is made in Ireland. A sense of proportion as well as a sense of patriotism is necessary to a sound national economy.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1924/0429/Pg004.html#Ar00401