Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1926 > Special Committee on Home Grown Tobacco Duties > Interim Report and Final Report - Home Grown Tobacco Duties

MIONTUAIRISCI NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 10adh Márta, 1926.

(Wednesday, 10th March, 1926.)

Chairman.—I think it better to draw the attention of members of the Committee to the terms of reference. It was first thought that we might have to consider the whole matter of tobacco growing, and all possible means of aiding it, but, according to the terms of reference, the only matter we are allowed to consider is the remission of excise duty. Apparently, we are not allowed to consider any increase of allowance on export or anything of that kind. Perhaps the question may arise later as to whether these terms of reference are sufficient and whether we may not have to ask to have them extended. Members of the Committee will observe in the précis of evidence of Senator Sir Nugent Everard, that in his opinion the allowance on exports is apparently the best way of approaching the question. Members of the Committee will have to confine themselves to the question of excise duty as distinct from any question of export allowance.

Deputy Mulvany.—It will be a question of the remission of duty.

Chairman.—Yes, and it will be a question whether the Committee can arrive at any useful result, if that is the only matter they can consider.

Deputy Cole.—Can we deal with tobacco growing compared with any other crop?

Chairman.—I suppose so.

Deputy Egan.—The terms of reference refer to “The relative importance of the industry.”

Senator Sir Nugent Everard, called and examined.

Chairman.

1. I think you are aware, Senator, of the terms of reference to this Committee: that the matter we have to consider is as to whether it is desirable to grant any further remission of excise duty to the growers of tobacco in the Saorstát. That apparently excludes us from investigating or recommending any other methods of helping the tobacco industry and our inquiry must be mainly directed to the question of the remission of excise. I think all the members of the Committee have received your précis of evidence. The first part of it deals with the historical background leading up to the present state of the industry in the country. I note that it is your opinion that the British market is the principal market which should be considered in any question of the development of Irish tobacco?—Yes, certainly, for some varieties of tobacco. For instance, a great deal of the tobacco we grow and cure in this country is more suitable for shag than flake. There are no smokers of shag in this country and Mr. Goodbody will tell you that in England they are shag smokers. In England Irish tobacco is given two shillings preference, whereas here the only inducement to the manufacturers to purchase is one-and-sixpence preference. There is not so much inducement given by the Irish Government to Irish-grown tobacco as is given by England.

2. In your opinion would any remission of excise duty be of any use with regard to the British markets for Irish tobacco? —If you will allow me to explain that; we look upon the British market as an alternative. Some of the tobacco produced here is not suitable for the Irish market and would suit the British market well. But in the British market we have to compete with colonial tobacco from various countries where labour is so cheap as to amount to something like twopence a day. It is mostly coloured labour and, therefore, the growers can sell that tobacco at an extremely low price with which no white man paying a decent rate of wages can compete. Therefore, I think—and this was put forward by Mr. Mulvany in the Dáil—that as compensation to Irish growers for the loss of a duty-free home market and for having to compete in England with the produce of coloured labour, an export allowance—you may call it what you like, whether export allowance or excise allowance or an allowance for export or a subsidy—should be made. If we had a shilling for every pound of tobacco that was considered by the Department of Agriculture as suitable for export, that is to say that was properly cured and prepared for the market, that would be as good a way to encourage the industry in this country as any other and would cost less to the revenue, because the point is this: personally the growers are indifferent as to where the tobacco is smoked. They want the employment and that is what the country wants. If we could produce the class of tobacco that is suitable for any market in the world it would be better for us to sell it abroad than to try and force it in our own market. Probably it would be taken unwillingly by our manufacturers, because, of course, you know about the different varieties and classes of tobacco. You are aware that many classes of tobacco cannot be smoked except as a blend, in mixtures. You know of the tobacco called Latakia generally grown in the northern part of Syria. It makes a good pipe mixture but I would like to see the man who would smoke a pipe of Latakia. People talk about Turkish tobacco but how many ever tried to smoke a cigarette of Dubac alone? It is almost impossible. Turkish cigarettes contain a large proportion of this leaf. It is the top leaf of the plant and it has the highest possible aroma, in fact, too much, to smoke by itself. All these vary in value. Of course, we know Perique. It is produced in the State of Louisiana and that is also very useful in mixtures or blends. Mr. Goodbody will tell you of a variety of Empire tobaccos that make excellent mixtures but there is no tobacco that I know of as imported from the colonies or in being in the Empire which can be smoked as what is called “straight.” They are all mixtures. And if our tobacco is of a different flavour, as it must be, to a large public accustomed for a hundred years to other tobaccos, then the way to use it is more or less in larger or smaller proportions as a blend with American.

3. Then, in your opinion the proper way to approach this question is by granting a subsidy or an allowance upon export? —That would give us an alternative market. Supposing that the Irish manufacturers who have really reason to complain—I am not speaking for them, although I have been one of them and I know intimately all about the process and, therefore, I know the qualities of these tobaccos I mentioned, and I know you could use Irish tobacco in blend, in smaller or in greater proportions according to its quality—what I was going to say was that the Irish manufacturers have real reason to complain. The inducements given to them to use the new Irish-grown tobacco is less by sixpence than that given to the London manufacturer. Then consider that the proportion grown is only so much and that for some years it is not sufficient for any big manufacturer to make a line of his own. Therefore, manufacturers can only use it in blends. I think what we want in preference is best estimated by the manufacturers themselves. It is not for us to say what would induce them to give what we may call an economic price for Irish tobacco.

4. Do you think that the partial remission of the excise would induce the Irish manufacturers to buy Irish tobacco? —It is for them to say how much remission they would require. Denmark, which is taken as a model for everything, though I hear they are in trouble at the present moment, gives five-sixth of the duty to its tobacco-growers.

5. From the point of view of the growers, they desire a complete remission of the excise?—Well, if you want to put them on a level with the growers in other countries with which they compete, if they cannot have a home market free, they will have to send abroad all that they grow more than the country requires; that is to say, they have to send it abroad to compete with the inferior as well as the higher grades. It is a point that it would be well to realise, that none of the Empire countries and dominions limit the growth of their tobacco to the requirements of their own country. Rhodesia, which has a small population, grows sufficient tobacco to supply its own market, and after supplying its own market has a surplus of four and a half million pounds to send over to the British market. It is the same with every Empire country; they all grow for export, that is where they know that the demand is almost unlimited. I have some figures which I will give to the Committee. It is very difficult for people that have not read all the literature on this question to realise all the facts. For instance, the British Empire Produce Organisation published memoranda giving details about each country. what amount of tobacco it produces and what amount it sends out for export. I have here an analysis of the United Kingdom imports. I find that the total import into Great Britain in 1921 was 229,112,000 pounds. The year before it was 222,000,000. A good deal of that is re-exported. In Britain they were only able to use, out of that huge import of 229,000,000 pounds, something like six per cent. That was all they were able to use of Empire tobacco. In the British market all they could take is six per cent. of that as a blend. So it is quite obvious that there is plenty of room for us if our tobacco can compare with and compete with, as I maintain it can, that of the Empire countries. Such tobacco as I have sold over there has been sold at a higher price than Indian tobacco. Our best is about on a level with Rhodesian and Nyasa best. Their worst never comes over, because they have a free home market.

6. I think you attended before the Agricultural Commission in 1923. Do you agree with the figures which they arrived at?—No, not at all. They assumed that Irish tobacco would be used in this country to the extent of 25 per cent. “Taking our figure of 25 per cent. as approximately correct it follows that the amount of Irish tobacco that could be used in the manufacture of tobacco for Irish consumption would be 1,896,500 pounds.” On that they calculated that the loss to the Treasury would be very considerable—I do not know about the eventual loss, but the immediate loss of duty—if they gave 50 per cent. of a preference. The experience of the British market is wholly different, as I have already explained. Only 6 per cent. of the total consumption—or the importation of tobacco, because it is practically the same thing—is colonial. In the same way if you calculate the probable amount of Irish tobacco that would be used in this country on the same basis it comes to a wholly different figure—the produce of about 600 acres. You have got an unlimited market in England or Scotland. You cannot change the whole taste of a nation in a year or two.

7. We have no guarantee that the preference of 2/- which the British Government gives Empire-grown tobacco would be maintained?—You mean in England?

8. Chairman.—Yes?—Witness.—What the Empire countries wanted was to stabilise the figure no matter what variation there might be in the duty on imported foreign tobacco. They eventually agreed that if they got 2/- they would be able to get along all right. They still mean to work their best to get that figure stabilised. They hold that no matter what the foreign duty is they should have 2/- preference out of it. If they are able to reduce it—the foreign duty—to 5/-the Empire duty shall be only 3/-. I think they will probably succeed.

9. We have no control over that?—No.

10. If the Imperial preference in England were withdrawn or decreased it would mean a corresponding expense on this country if the industry is to be maintained. If this country were to give an allowance of 1/-, plus the 2/- Imperial preference in England, any reduction in the English Imperial preference would mean that we would have to pay more— that the Free State would have to pay an increased allowance on exports—if our industry was to be maintained?—No. If you understand, it is only to enable us to compete with other Empire countries that have the market. They have had six years’ start and they practically captured the market. We want to oust them and we have to fight our way.

11. You give 600 acres as the figure for home consumption?—That is assuming that no higher rate of home-grown tobacco is used than is used of Empire tobacco in the British market. As far as having land suitable for tobacco in this country is concerned, it is practically unlimited. We have at least half a million acres of land that would be suitable. We tried it on every description of land except the land that is most suitable for cigarette tobacco; that is, sandy soil. I think Mr. Kellor, who is our expert adviser and who has an intimate knowledge of nearly every part of Ireland, would be able to give you some evidence as to soils. Certainly with regard to varieties, his services have been of enormous advantage to the whole industry. He has given very useful service in trying every known variety and in hybridising, so that we have varieties not known to any other country. In fact, agents of other countries who have been sent here to observe Irish tobacco growing have begged seed from me. The Indian Government got large quantities of seed from me. From even as far north as Finland we had visitors and they tried to grow our seed there. From America a considerable number of growers of tobacco have come here. If you read the opinions expressed you would see that they have been very favourable as to the quality of the tobacco grown here and the possibility of making it a permanent industry in the country.

12. Deputy Mulvany.—What is the average yield per acre?—About 800 pounds.

13. What is the cost of production?— The cost of production from the seed-bed to the market, including costs of marketing, etc., is eighteenpence per lb. on an average.

14. How about the duty?—The duty is paid by the manufacturer. We have nothing to say to the duty. In asking for a preference we ask it as an inducement for the manufacturer to give a good price for Irish tobacco.

15. As the industry of growing tobacco stands at present, do you find it impossible to carry on under existing conditions?—There is not sufficient inducement offered to Irish manufacturers to purchase it.

16. You find a difficulty in marketing tobacco?—We find a difficulty in marketing it. Manufacturers rightly complain that they have not been fairly treated. Then there is little to purchase because of the discouragement that growers have had. It is hardly worth the manufacturers’ while troubling about it. Of course, you know the history—if not, probably you will get it from others—of the treatment of tobacco-growing in this country.

17. Unless the manufacturers are placed under better conditions it will not be worth while for them to purchase home-grown tobacco?—They cannot be expected to. The Minister for Finance has got some extraordinary idea into his head that you are offering it to the manufacturers for nothing if there is eighteen pence preference. Any child with a slate before him will show you that if you must pay eighteenpence for Irish tobacco, add the duty of 6/8 to that and then compare it with the duty on and price of foreign tobacco you will find there is only about 10 per cent. difference. You can get good average American for 1/- and then you put 8/2 to that. Probably the Minister was right to put it the way he did. He made the best case he could to show the liberality of the Treasury.

18. The idea would be to regulate the duty and preference rates so that the manufacturers would be in a position to buy home-grown tobacco?—Exactly. Let them buy what they want and what suits their trade. Whatever does not suit their trade, we have an excellent market for it on the other side. Questions as to the amount of preference should be addressed to the manufacturers, because they pay the duty; we do not. It was a different thing when we were given a rebate, which went straight to the grower. There was no question about his getting it.

Deputy Cole.

19. Would your operations affect the farmers’ interests more than the manufacturers’ interests?—I speak only for farmers. I have manufactured, I suppose, very nearly half a million pounds of tobacco and I have sold it. I know all about it; I know how far you can blend it and I know the best purposes you can put different varieties of tobacco to. All my manufacturing was crippled by want of capital. I could not advertise, and could not employ the greatest skill. My stuff was rough, but it sold, and for years I held the Government contract for supplying institutions. If you want evidence of that, my manager will tell you. Through some influence—I do not know what—my samples were returned, not even looked at, on one occasion.

20. What employment would tobacco-growing give as compared with potatoes or other root crops?—The Department have all those figures. I quoted them in my evidence. The way they work out as regards hours of employment is as follows:—Tobacco, 748 hours; potatoes, 309; flax, 228; mangolds, 270; sugar beet, 270; turnips, 173; barley, 83½. I do not know whether I ought to wait until I am asked to explain as regards the question of employment. In this country, with the high wages, this is a small farmer’s crop. He can utilise the time at the disposal of his children during the holidays or after they leave school. In my district, there was not a single girl or woman who could not get employment at the tobacco crop. If you turn up the census of 1901 and the census of 1911, you will find that in those districts where tobacco was grown there was an increase in the population. These are practically the only districts in Ireland where there was such an increase. Owing to scarcity of employment, there had been a decrease in practically all the other districts, so that, if only for social reasons, the question of tobacco-growing should be treated with consideration. It is a crop that gives so much employment that instead of having to send your daughters out into the world at an early age to earn a living or to send them across the seas to be swallowed up in the urban populations, you can keep them at home and enable them to help their parents to maintain the whole household in decency and comfort.

Deputy Mulvany.

21. I would like if you would deal with tobacco-growing from the point of view of rotation in farming and as to the benefit it confers as regards wheat growing?—As to rotation, we may take it broadly as a fact that for every acre of tobacco you grow, you put six acres under the plough. For instance, you may want to introduce cultivation among a number of these small holders to whom the ranches are being distributed. You will see some beautiful examples of the kind of ranch I mean in the neighbourhood of Dunshaughlin, a district with which Deputy Mulvany is well acquainted. You will see ranches of 1,000 acres and 500 acres distributed amongst the landless. The divisions are there, but some of them are beginning to crumble. You will see that land all in grass—not a sod turned.

22. It is the exception to see a sod turned?—It is. It is let by auction the same as before. I was a member of the Land Conference, which some of you may recollect. One of the most important points put forward by that conference of landlords and tenants was, that instead of a man being obliged to emigrate he should be provided with land at home. Every colony at the time was offering inducements to Irishmen to bring over their families. They had boundless prairies and they promised our people that they would give them as much land as they wanted and every help to establish themselves. There are plenty of prairies in Meath and other counties. What the conference wanted was that these young men of energy and agricultural knowledge should be given a chance of getting a farm in their own country. Of course, we did not look upon a man being landless as giving him any claim. It was a question as to a farmer having a son or sons for whom there was no room when they married. It was the view of the conference that these farmers’ sons should be given a portion of the land held by absentees, without any sentiment in the ownership, but merely as a means of income-getting. The view was that that land should be bought from the owners and distributed. Let us suppose a man with energy got one of these “striped” holdings, as they are called, and cultivated an acre of it with tobacco. You cannot grow tobacco continuously in the same soil. You must rotate it. It will pay directly in proportion to the energy expended upon it. The gross profit to a small farmer is really nett profit, because he puts all the expense by way of labour —and it is a labour crop—in his own pocket. He may be able, by his energy and skill, to make £50 a statute acre from the crop. My son, or perhaps the Department expert, will give you an instance of a man who made £100 a statute acre, because he was careful of every leaf. It is a crop that you cannot treat like cabbages. Every single leaf is of value, and from that point of view, it seems to me that it is an ideal crop for a small farmer. You cannot go on growing tobacco on the same land. The grower must break up another acre and he gets a fine crop of wheat out of the first acre. Other witnesses will show you that land which has been cultivated for tobacco, owing to the high manuring and careful removing of weeds, will grow excellent wheat where wheat was never sown before.

23. Will it grow better wheat than under ordinary circumstances? — Yes; about 25 per cent. higher yield. We have our own evidence of that. This good cultivation shows through three or four crops. In order to cultivate tobacco properly, it must take its place in rotation. You have, first, a root crop; the artificial manures you use in the cultivation of tobacco will give you an excellent corn crop. After that, if it is laid down, you will find its effect in first and second crops of grass and clover. You have a six-year rotation, so that you may say in truth, that the growing of one acre of tobacco entails the breaking up of six acres of land.

Deputy Beamish.

24. We have been talking about the cost of production and about the employment given and the enrichment of the soil. All the contentions in these respects are, I think, correct; but the important thing in all this is the comparison of quality. There is no use producing a thing that people object to, on the ground of quality, and it is just as well to take cognisance of both sides of the question in the argument?—Yes.

25. We found in the South of Ireland that this home-grown tobacco was objected to on the ground of quality. We need not, I suppose, go into the question of the higher grades of tobacco, because they cannot be produced here. Therefore, what we have to consider is the ordinary common tobacco in plug or shag. I have heard very serious complaints from the South of Ireland of the Irish tobacco as compared with ordinary Virginian?— You do not know who the manufacturer was?

I really cannot tell you, but there were three kinds of blends tested. It was not the manufacturer’s fault. It was really attributable to the origin of the tobacco. It had a peculiar flavour.

Chairman.—We can discuss these matters when we are considering our report. For the present, the Deputy should confine himself to questions to the witness.

Witness.—Has Deputy Beamish got a copy of the experts’ opinions, because I have a copy here?

26. Deputy Beamish.—No, but I cannot go by experts’ opinions. I go by the opinion of the consumer. There are lots of patent medicines on which you get remarkable opinions, but they do not cure you. You go to a man for an opinion, say, on water, and he will give it to you and charge you a fee. If you do not succeed in satisfying his taste he does not consume the tobacco.

Witness.—You are on the wrong track.

27. I am on the right track, and I am going to keep to it, because I know what I am talking about. I suggest that practically the majority of consumers object to this blend, and have given it up. What is the reason that a great number have tried even this light blend of tobacco and found it inimical to their taste?—If they did not know it was Irish I suppose they would not notice any difference from the others.

28. I do not think Irishmen are desirous to run down their own manufacture?—I am a consumer, and it pleases my taste.

29. I can quote forty as against one— and that is a high percentage—who will say that this quality does not satisfy them. Is there anything in the Irish soil or climate, or the want of sun in Ireland, that does not produce that satisfactory flavour demanded by the majority of consumers?—What do you want me to answer?

30. What is there in quality against Irish tobacco that prevents a great number of consumers from smoking it, even in blend?—In the first place, I asked you a question which you said was irrelevant, and that was, what manufacturer are you referring to?

31. There were two or three of the manufacturers that have produced both? —I think it is a fair question to ask. I think you spoke about tobacco that you had smoked yourself.

That had been smoked in the South, but not blended in the South.

Witness.—Have you ever smoked Dobbyn and Ogilvie’s Irish mixture?

32. Deputy Beamish.—I once smoked a cigarette and had to give it up.

Witness.—I am not talking about cigarettes. Practically no cigarette tobacco has been sold. It is only grown experimentally, so that the ordinary grower cannot grow it. I should strongly recommend to you “Cordangan” mixture, an Irish blend, sold by Dobbyn and Ogilvie.

Deputy Beamish.—I have already tested it.

Witness.—That is grown in the South by Lord Barrymore. I might also ask, are you referring to cigars produced by Mr. Lambkin, of Cork?

Deputy Beamish.—I am talking of the lower class of tobacco blend.

Witness.—It depends upon the grower, to start with. Every grower is not equally skilful and different lands are not equally suitable.

33. Deputy Beamish.—For flavour?

Witness.—For flavour or anything. Some lands produce a higher quality than others in every country in the world. I do not know why you should want to give this country a black eye in particular?— I do not want to give the consumer a delicate throat.

Deputy M. Doyle.—I do not think this is relevant.

Chairman.—I do not think we can go into it.

Deputy Beamish.—We must not go into the quality—we must smoke brown paper.

Deputy M. Doyle.—We have gone beyond the experimental stage in Ireland, and it has been proved that tobacco of a fair quality can be grown.

Deputy Sears.—The quality has been proved.

Deputy Beamish.—I challenge that statement absolutely. I consider we ought to be as careful in regard to the quality as to the cost of production.

Chairman.—I do not think we can discuss the problem of public taste.

Deputy M. Doyle.

34. Tobacco growing necessitates the employment of 175 per cent. more labour than potato growing?—Those figures are official. They are not mine, but you can take them as being correct.

35. And would mean the employment of several hundred per cent. more labour than other crops?—Yes, three hundred per cent.

36. You stated that it is principally a small-holder’s crop?—Yes.

37. Would it be possible for a large farmer, if he chose to pay the cost of production, to produce tobacco at a profit?—He would make a margin of profit, but so small that it is a question whether any large farmer would care to take the trouble and the risk of having such a large number of hired hands. I have grown as many as 20 acres, and it has cost me £50 per acre in labour—that is, £1,000 for the labour on the crop. It means that if you are a philanthropist you can employ without loss to yourself.

38. I am not putting the question from that point of view?—You can make a profit if you give your time to it. A man with the means to employ a large staff must give a large proportion of his time to it, and very few large farmers are willing to do that.

39. Supposing there was an increased rebate or subsidy would it then be possible for the large farmer to grow tobacco profitably?—Certainly, it would be made profitable for him.

40. From your experience of tobacco-growing, can you tell us exactly what the grower would require to make it a profitable crop?—He would want eighteenpence per pound for his raw leaf, properly re-handled and marketed. The advantage that a large farmer has is that he can generally pay for high skill in the handling of his crop and, therefore, eighteenpence for an average crop would mean a great deal more to him, because some would be under the average and might be worth only one shilling.

41. Do you say that eighteenpence would be the price that he would require to get for his leaf?—Yes, marketed.

42. Would that give him a reasonable profit?—If you were a practical farmer and did your work well, it would give you a very fine profit. I may say that there is no other crop that gives such a large gross profit.

43. But the gross profit would not mean very much to the producer if he had a very big outlay?—It would give him a profit in proportion to the energy he put into it

Deputy Egan.

44. I would like a little information with regard to the market for tobacco. I understood from your evidence that you consider that the export trade is the one to cultivate?—Yes

45. Would I be correct in gathering from that that you do not see very much hope of any appreciable extension in the Irish consumption of Irish-grown tobacco? —We should call it a very large expansion even up to 600 acres.

46. Do you consider that there is a possibility of getting a greater consumption of Irish tobacco in Ireland?—Certainly; there would be a consumption for every pound of tobacco that could be produced if you satisfied the manufacturers —gave them sufficient inducement to buy it.

47. You recollect that in the report of the Agricultural Commission the evidence of the manufacturers was to the effect that they could use only ten per cent?—I said that six per cent. was what they were using at present of any Empire tobaccos in the British market.

48. The manufacturers stated that ten per cent. is the maximum they could employ?—Yes.

49. Do you agree with that?—No.

50. I am confining it to the Irish consumption alone—I am coming to the export in a minute—you do not agree with that ten per cent.?—It is not the utmost you could use. I have no doubt that in the British market they would use ten per cent.

51. Leave out the British market for the present?—I do not know what percentage they will tell you that they could use of Empire tobacco but I do not think that it is more than ten per cent. It is not a question of what you could use. You have to alter the public taste before you can blend at a higher rate.

52. That is what I am coming to. Can you give any reason for hoping that the public taste will alter?—One consideration which the public take into account is the price. It is wonderful how soon a man’s taste will alter when he finds that he is making a saving by buying a certain article. I have no doubt that in time many articles which have the advantage of a tariff in this country will attract buyers by their cheapness. If you want to produce cheaply you must produce largely, and the more protection an article has, the cheaper it will be produced.

53. I suppose that really is evidence which we should get from the retailers? —Yes.

54. To come back to the question of export, I want to be clear about the position of Empire-grown tobacco. I understand that in England there is an Empire preference of 2/- per lb. and in Ireland 1/6?—Yes; 2/- per lb. is given by the British Government.

55. So you get an advantage of two shillings when you export tobacco to England, and you only get one and sixpence per lb. for home-grown tobacco in Ireland?—The grower or producer does not get that. He does not pay the duty. It is merely meant as an inducement to manufacturers. The Government should give a greater inducement to our manufacturers to buy that tobacco if they want it produced, if they want to find employment for people who are out of work, and also, if they want to prevent the land from going back to grass.

56. You say that one acre of tobacco is equivalent to six acres under the plough. Would you describe the rotation?—Perhaps I may be allowed to state why the land is going out of cultivation. The Department of Agriculture has published figures by their experts showing that no crop at present prices pays for the cost of production. That is also believed by the farmers, and the consequence is, that land is tumbling into grass as quickly as it can. Here is a crop that has proved to be most profitable, and for which there is a large demand in the British market. Further, in order to grow tobacco a man must break up his land. To carry the rotation through he has got to have at least six acres.

57. What is the rotation?—You take a crop of oats off the land and then a crop of turnips. Then you take a crop of tobacco with artificials. Those artificials are more than the crop is able to consume. There is a large residual value which enables wheat to be grown on land which never grew it before. Then it is laid down in grass and you break it up again.

58. Deputy M. Doyle.—I say that tobacco can be grown successively from the same place.

Witness.—It is not economical.

59. I should say that it is just as economical as rotation. For at least two or three years after that you do develop a lot of soft weeds, but I hold that it can be grown successively for three years on a freshly-broken field?—The quality of land, of course, differs. I have grown it on the same land for ten years running.

Deputy M. Doyle.—I quite agree that it necessitates breaking up the rotation, and that it will be a great incentive to produce more tillage.

Deputy Egan.

60. The present average is between seven hundred and eight hundred lbs?— That is the average, but I have known a yield of two thousand lbs.

61. Take eight hundred lbs. at 1/6 per lb. That is £60. That is the amount of the subsidy at present—£60 an acre?— Yes. That is what his gross price would be.

62. Do you consider that the State gets value for that subsidy of £60 an acre?—I do not know whether it is safe to go into that question. I am thinking of the subsidy on sugar. There are other reasons apart from the actual value derived from it. There is, for instance, the reason of providing employment.

Deputy Egan.—That is what I want to hear, but perhaps it is not a proper question under our terms of reference.

Deputy M. Doyle.—The terms of reference cover that where reference is made at the end about revenue.

Deputy Egan.—Yes, that is so.

63. Witness (to Chairman).—Pardon me for addressing you, Sir, on the subject, but it struck me that this question is so important it ought to be gone into. I am sure you sympathise with Mr. Blythe in his efforts to find employment. I shall quote from the Official Reports of the 24th April, 1924, when he initiated his policy of tariffs. He said: “I regard these protective tariffs as being in the nature of an investment. I have said that often before and I think it is absolutely a true presentation of the position. It may be that we are too poor to pay very much in that direction but we are not so poor that we must neglect the future for the present.” This industry has never been put on an industrial footing. It has been the subject of experiment. I may be considered as going into politics when I say that it was purposely kept in that position. Under the British regime it raised a most difficult question as between free trade and protection. It is one instance where, if you provide protection for a dutiable article, you cannot say that you are adding to the cost of living because the more protection you give to the growth of tobacco the cheaper tobacco can be consumed and, therefore, it reduces the cost of living.

64. Deputy Beamish.—He does not receive his due revenue from his tobacco. He consumes a cheaper tobacco?—I am assuming that cheaper tobacco is sold at its value.

65. It means that you get cheaper tobacco and higher taxation. If you do not gain revenue from tobacco you are losing in another way?—I am afraid that that will not work.

66. Deputy Egan.—Assuming that there is a subsidy of £60 an acre,—I am working on 800 lbs. yield—what proportion of that would be for labour?—I think you will have to wait for Major Everard’s evidence for that as he has got the figures. A large proportion would go in wages.

67. Probably three-fourths?—Say two-thirds. You will get the actual figures later.

68. I am anxious to arrive at the benefits which the country gets from the subsidy?—You will have, I hope, evidence from some growers in your own county, and they will tell you.

Deputy Sears.

69. What price per lb. is at present obtainable for Irish-grown tobacco?—It varies. You pool the grower’s crop together—I would rather that you got this from the Department’s expert—the tobacco is then graded and a percentage is taken of each grade. The samples are then selected and sent to the Liverpool broker, who is supposed to have the best knowledge of the market value. When we get that back the Department’s expert values each tobacco on that basis. He sends over a complete run of samples to the broker, who puts on a price. He makes out an average, and the Department’s expert does the rest. One tobacco might be worth only 4d. per lb. That is probably the kind of tobacco that our friend tried to smoke. Another tobacco might be worth 2/- per lb.

Deputy Beamish.—That is not quite a fair statement for the witness to make— that I tried to smoke a certain kind of tobacco. The Witness is telling us that we are going to lose nothing, but rather that we will gain an enormous sum of money by increasing taxation and reducing the price of tobacco. I have not seen any evidence of that yet. I hold that that statement is as irrelevant as any other that has been made.

Deputy Mulvany.—If we have to listen to statements of this kind we will be here for a month.

70. Deputy Sears.—I see by a form here that in the year 1922 the average selling price was 1/6 per lb., and that it was the same in 1923. What is the average price to-day?

Witness.—The last crop we sold to the Imperial at 1/6.

71. The present subsidy amounts to 1/6?—The subsidy, that is the preference, is 1/4, which the manufacturer gets, We do not get it.

72. At any rate, the State pays 1/6 per lb. That gives £60 per acre. According to your statement, tobacco growing will not become profitable unless the Irish Government grants another 1/- per lb. That would mean £40 per acre?—Yes.

73. Therefore, the £40 per acre, plus the existing £60 per acre, would give you a total of £100 per acre?—You cannot have it both ways.

74. At any rate, one would be paid on exports and the other on home consumption?—It is very fallacious to argue on the acreage basis because you may produce a very high quality tobacco that will only give you about half the yield of coarse stuff.

75. Let us take 400 lb. as the yield per acre. That would be £30 subsidy on home consumption—the export would be different. If you got 1/- per lb. on tobacco exported, it would amount to only £20 per acre?—Yes, but perhaps that tobacco might not want any help at all. It might be of such high quality that it would sell at quite a high price on the London market. Therefore, I say that arguing on the acreage basis is most fallacious. One man, for instance, through his own neglect might produce tobacco that no one could sell. Another man, owing to his extreme skill, could produce tobacco to compete with any tobacco in the world.

76. For export, therefore, if 1/- per lb. were granted by the Government as you suggest it would mean less expense on the State than the present method of paying 1/6 per lb. Do I understand that from you?—It would be of great advantage to the Government. They call this a sacrifice to the Treasury. It would be a less sacrifice to the Treasury if they gave us 1/- to export tobacco because by this investment, as Mr. Blythe calls it, we would bring back at least 2/- to spend in the country.

77. Leaving out the consequent advantages, I want to get at what the actual cost would be to the revenue of the State. At present the State pays 1/6 per lb. for tobacco used at home. Is that right?—I do not quite follow you.

78. At all events, whether as a rebate or otherwise, the Government is at a loss?—They do not pay anything.

79. No, but they are at a loss of 1/6 per lb.?—Why are they at a loss? The money is still in your pocket and in mine.

80. The State is at a loss of 1/6 per lb. on tobacco consumed at home under the present arrangements?—That is a most fallacious argument. I smoke Goodbody’s tobacco, but if I get my tobacco from England it would be much better for the Government because there is a high duty, up to 50 per cent. on imported manufactured tobacco, while every pound of tobacco manufactured in this country, on the same line of argument, is a loss to the Treasury.

81. I see that in the year 1923 there were 30 growers of tobacco, and that the total acreage was 33. I find that in all the years the acreage per grower was something over one acre per year as a rule. What I want to get at is this: the amount of subsidy, per acre, for the crop is rather on the large side and I want to measure the amount of it?—We have no subsidy.

82. No, not a subsidy, but a preference?—I am trying to explain that that preference is for the manufacturer. We never see that money.

83. I suggest it is a matter of indifference to the State who sees the money if the State parts with it?—Certainly, it will have an influence on the price

84. Yes, but it will be put forward by those opposed to assisting the tobacco industry that the cost per grower and per acre is out of all proportion, and is too large. That is the point I am looking to at the moment. In the year 1923, there was a subsidy for that year, I take it, of 1/6 per lb.?—I call it a preference.

85. And there was a yield of 24,000 lbs. That would represent £1,800 given as a preference to 30 individuals. Well, if all the farmers in Ireland got a preference on their crops at that rate, some on wheat, some on beet, and some on other crops, I am afraid the Farmers’ Union would have a greater cause of complaint than they have at present?

Witness.—Are you quite sure of that?

86. Deputy Sears.—Well, I would like to hear what you have to say?—Did you ever hear how the tillage area in Ireland was increased by one and a quarter million acres in Grattan’s time. I would recommend you to study that question.

87. Deputy Beamish.—Did the crops realise the same price then as now? Of course, you must study all sides of the question.

Chairman.—I do not think that this matter is included in our terms of reference.

Witness.—I was just answering Deputy Sears’ point. I say that a bounty on the export of wheat was the making of the country. It meant that the area under tillage was increased by one and a quarter million acres in a few years. You can see that from Dr. O’Brien’s book.

88. Deputy Beamish.—And paid for by others?—Paid for by the import duty.

Chairman.—I would again point out that we are not entitled to consider or report on the question of an export bounty.

Witness.—Of course, I bow to your ruling, but if you read the first paragraph in the evidence I put in, you will see that would be accusing the Minister for Finance of having forgotten what he had already stated: that it was the desire of the Government that this industry should be established in the country. It can only be established by helping the export of its products to a larger market, and I do not see that it is wrong to introduce the subject.

Chairman.—No, but our terms of reference do not permit us to recommend such a course.

89. Deputy Sears.—I find that in the year 1923 the yield was 24,040 lbs. Taking it that the amount of wages spent would be about £30 or £40 per acre, then the total amount spent on that acreage for that year would be 24,040 lbs. multiplied by £40. You anticipate, if 1/- is allowed by the Government, that instead of having 33 acres under tobacco we would probably have ten times that amount?—There may be.

90. And you look forward to the amount spent in wages being increased in the same proportion?—I presume so.

Deputy Cole.

91. How do you account for the fall in the amount produced between the years 1921 and 1924?—I think I could tell you all about that, but I would prefer to have that point dealt with by another witness. At any rate as you ask me about it I shall tell you. In the year 1919 an import preference came in in this country as well as in England. Before the tobacco was ready to market we sent over samples to a broker in Liverpool. He put an average value on those samples of 2/- per lb. Under the scheme which you have not seen but which the Department will produce to you, I was obliged to give a cash price as fixed by the Liverpool broker, so that the crop should be a cash profit. That is what it is always called—a money profit. By the time I finished the tobacco I wrote to the broker to tell him I was going to sell and I asked his advice as to what it was then worth—that is, within three months. He said that owing to the immense quantities of Empire tobacco that had been dumped on the British market, he doubted if it could be sold at all, or, at any rate, instead of 2/- that I might get 5d. a lb. That is the reason why we did not sell in 1920. In 1921 the conditions were the same.

92. We all remember that 1924 was a very wet season and probably 1922 was also. Would that have anything to do with tobacco not being up to the standard?—No. I want to explain why, in that particular year, it could not be sold. I think India was the worst dumper. In 1918 the amount sent to the British market from India was 200,000 lbs. In 1919, the year Empire Preference came into force, she dumped nine million pounds. You can understand the difficulty of coping with the surplus products of another country in view of that. The same conditions prevailed in 1921, and consequently in those two years tobacco could not be sold. The growers became very discontented. I was stuck once in 1919 and I could not afford to run the risk of being stuck two years running. The growers would not accept, and you could not expect them to accept, a price that is now one quarter of what it was. The case is sub judice, but the fact was that I had to borrow the money and to pay them what was thought by the authorities a fair price. Of course that price has never been realised since because the market has never recovered.

93. I think you said that the lands which were divided up in Meath have all gone back into grass, that the small farmers are not tilling their land?—They are not.

94. And generally, that labourers who have labourers’ cottages there, have their plots gone to weeds?—A great many of them are under grass.

95. So that there is practically nothing doing with the small farmer?—My son has particulars of an agricultural labourer who put half of his garden, I think it was, into tobacco. He had the largest yield of any grower under the scheme. I think he had 1,500 or 2,000 lbs.

96. I suppose you had a fair average crop in the twenty acres you grew. You said you grew twenty acres at a cost of £1,000. You had a fair, average crop?— It all depends on the season.

97. In that particular season, you said you grew twenty acres at a cost of £1,000?—Well, it all depends, you see, on the variety. It is hard to give you all-round figures. Now, the ordinary crop——

98. I would like you to deal with this crop in particular. Take any one year in particular. What did it realise a lb. for that twenty acres?—It is very hard to tell, because the prices vary.

99. For 1924, what did it realise?—It is not sold.

100. So that it is not a cash transaction; it is not a cash crop?—It is if you get your market.

101. Your statement was that it is a cash crop. You say that the 1924 crop is not sold yet. When do you propose to sell the 1924 crop?—The samples are in the premises of the Irish Tobacco Company, 30 Merchants’ Quay, and it is open to anyone to go and see it.

102. Yes, but my point is, that it is not a cash transaction. As far as the 1924 crop is concerned, you are not paid for it yet?—No, I have not sold it.

103. If you had sold it at the average price which you gave us, of 1/6 a lb., you would have got £60 an acre for it for an average yield?—I could not tell you that without going into the figures.

104. Supposing you got 800 lbs. per acre, you would have £60 per acre for your crop, and it cost you, according to your own figures, £50 to grow it?—Very nearly.

105. Do you think it is feasible for any farmer to grow a precarious crop like that which he may not sell for two or three years, in order to make £10 an acre on an average?—Pardon me, I am speaking of averages. While I employ expert labour, I get a better price than a man, often a beginner, who has to do with occasional visits from an expert. My tobacco might be worth 2/- a lb. on an average.

106. I know, but you are recommending it now for the ordinary farmer to grow. The ordinary farmer, according to your calculation, would probably make £10 an acre?—It is quite possible that through his own negligence he might get less.

107. That he might only get £3 for his acre instead of £10?—This is the only crop I know that rewards a man in proportion to the trouble he takes with it.

108. Farmers are supposed to create eighty-five per cent. of the wealth of the country. Considering the possibility of a farmer making £3 an acre, do you think that the Government would be well advised in subsidising this crop in any way in preference to a crop like wheat? —I do. It gives more employment.

109. More employment than flax would give?—I suppose barley is the same. Barley gives eighty-three and a half hours, and tobacco gives 748 hours.

110. When we go into the market in the following spring or in that winter we can realise our money for flax and for barley. Before it is taken out of the field we have it sold?—This seems rather drawn-out, but I want to explain that one of the advantages of the tobacco crop is that you can keep it for some years without deterioration. I doubt if other crops, such as barley, could be kept for more than two years.

111. Deputy Beamish.—But if you keep your tobacco for two or three years you are out of your interest on your capital. By the end of that time you may have to realise at a loss. Therefore it is like hops; it is a far more delicate and speculative crop, with the danger of not only losing a good deal of the value of your tobacco, but of having to borrow capital?—I can only answer that question by asking another. Do you think it is an advantage or a disadvantage that tobacco can be stored without loss for some years?

112. Deputy Beamish.—It might be both. If the market rose it might be an advantage. If it fell, as it is doing at present, it is of considerable disadvantage to the 1924 crop?—In normal circumstances, it need not be kept, but we are not living in normal circumstances. An infant industry is never living in normal circumstances.

Deputy E. Doyle.

113. Is it your opinion that if a further remission of duty on home-grown tobacco is granted and that six hundred acres can be grown properly, that three thousand six hundred acres will have to be under cultivation continually? If, for instance, six hundred acres of tobacco is sown, does it not naturally follow that there must be three thousand six hundred acres under cultivation?—Yes.

114. Supposing that these six hundred acres are under tobacco, how many workers will be likely to be employed?— I can only give you the figures as to hours of employment—748 hours to every acre of tobacco.

115. Is it your opinion that a reduction in the price of home-grown tobacco would be very much per ounce? Take the case of workingmen in the country whose wages are fairly small. Would such men get much benefit from a further remission of duty?—It depends upon the amount of the reduction in the duty. It all rests on that. The more the cost of production is reduced the lower will be the price at which it could be sold.

116. Consequently, there would be a greater demand for home-grown tobacco? —Precisely. After all, the Treasury would not be such heavy losers.

117. Chairman.—There is one point you referred to in your précis, that was the great annoyance caused by the complication of the regulations which was calculated to deter farmers from growing tobacco?—I do not know whether it is generally known that tobacco, unlike any other crop, is grown under bond in this country. You cannot sow the seed before you sign a bond. I have got a bond for £50 here to show you. You have got to get securities for it, and I need hardly tell you that a small bog farmer, as some of the growers are, with three or four acres of bog, when he is told that he may render himself liable to a fine of £30, £40 or £50 for some breach of regulations he has never seen, is rather intimidated. In fact, no one man would have signed it for fear of the risk, and that is the reason why I came forward and gave an assurance to them. I will let you see this (Document handed in) because it is illuminating. You will see at the end what my bonds are. If you grow more than five acres it is £50 an acre. It is so artificial that it is not fair to judge the possibilities of an industry on a proper footing by what has happened under these conditions.

118. Deputy Beamish.—What are you bound to do by the bond?—If you are guilty of a breach of any of the regulations of the excise they may come down upon you and sell you up.

119. The labourer may not only smoke. but he may not even chew that tobacco?

—He is not allowed to touch a leaf.

120. Chairman.—I suppose the only way to remove these regulations would be to remit the whole excise duty?—I admit regulations are necessary so long as you have a duty.

121. They will have to remain unless there is a complete remission of duty?— Yes, that should be taken into account when you are thinking of how much of a chance you are going to give this tobacco in competing with free countries.

122. Deputy Mulvany.—This is the only country in the world where there is a duty on the product of the soil?—So far as I know. There is a kind of light duty called the excise duty. That is in the form of stamps which the manufacturer has to put on.

Deputy M. Doyle.

123. Did you find that this bond did much mischief to the growing of tobacco. Was it not more a matter of form than anything else?—It depends upon who is your officer. He can, if he chooses, make himself very disagreeable.

124. Did you ever feel yourself hampered by this bond?—I have many a time. Delay was caused. It would be a month before you got an answer and in the meantime the opportunity was lost. The notification about cutting and all that kind of thing was the chief difficulty.

Mr. R. H. Goodbody, called and examined.

125. Chairman.—You said, in your opinion, that the remission of the excise would be necessary in order to induce the Irish manufacturer to grow. What remission would be necessary?—I have not really calculated it. There is a difficulty in the matter of Irish tobacco. Two shillings are given in England but I do not think 2/- would be enough for Irish tobacco because we would have to give the consumer the benefit. A halfpenny or a penny in the wholesale price of tobacco is nothing to the consumer.

126. You would not give a figure?—I would rather not without calculation

127. You attended before the Agricultural Commission, 1923?—Yes.

128. Do you agree with their figure that the maximum amount of Irish tobacco which could be used by Irish manufacturers is 25 per cent.?—No, you could not use more than 10 per cent. It is difficult even with 10 per cent.

129. What do you think would be the best course to adopt in order to obtain an Irish market for Irish tobacco?—They might be able to produce tobacco and sell it a little cheaper but they have not experimented. You cannot make a type which will be smokable with more than ten per cent. of Irish tobacco. People will not smoke it. They would rather give 2d. an ounce more for tobacco which they will smoke. Two or three pence an ounce is a big thing but I doubt even if you made that reduction that you would get people to smoke tobacco with more than 10 per cent. of Irish in it. Nyasaland produces 20 per cent. but you could not use more than 10 or 15 per cent. of Rhodesian.

130. Deputy Mulvany.—Taking into account that 10 per cent. of home-grown tobacco would be used and that the average yield of tobacco is 800 lbs. per acre, there would be scope?—I think there would be scope for it all. That tobacco has to be used in common twist. You could not work it into cigars or plug. It has to be worked into Irish roll tobacco, and that is a class of tobacco that is going out.

131. Is it not possible to use home-grown tobacco in the manufacture of plug?—No, we would not use anything of that sort at all. The only tobacco used in the manufacture of plug is 5 per cent. of Nyasa. We could not use Rhodesian.

132. Chairman.—You say roll is going out?—Yes, very rapidly.

133. Deputy Beamish.—What reduction per ounce would induce a person to buy?—About one penny.

134. That is 1/4 a pound?—Yes, that might tempt him for a while, but I do not think he would continue it.

135. Deputy Cole.—Would it be possible to improve the standard of the homegrown article?—I do not think it would. The fault of the Irish tobacco is that it is very rank when you damp it, and it goes into rags.

136. That is for the want of heat?— Yes, I think so.

137. Chairman.—How many kinds of Irish tobacco do you manufacture?—I have grown tobacco in conjunction with Mr. Richardson for about ten years. It was all the same class of heavy tobacco.

138. You did not handle tobacco grown by others?—Very little.

139. Deputy M. Doyle.—Did you ever purchase any Irish-grown tobacco other than your own and Mr. Richardson’s?—I think we did.

140. Are you using any Irish tobacco at present?—No, I have some Irish tobacco at present and I cannot sell it. I do not know where it came from.

141. Is it not possible to use any Irish-grown tobacco in plug?—We would not like to do it.

142. Do any manufacturers use it?— They may, but we would not like to do it.

143. During my time growing tobacco we sold what we called our first quality very largely for plug wrapper to one of the principal manufacturers in Ireland at the time, Mr. Gallaher, and it seems peculiar to me that you could not use Irish tobacco in plug?—We would be afraid that we might lose our trade.

144. Mr. Gallaher, a very big manufacturer, was not afraid?—Are you sure he was using it?

145. Deputy M. Doyle.—I am.

Witness.—Perhaps he was putting it into roll.

146. I think the Department’s expert would be able to tell us about that. I think it is not fair for one manufacturer to state decisively that Irish-grown tobacco could not be used in plug. That is not fair to growers of Irish tobacco.

Deputy Beamish.—I think it is quite fair.

Witness.—I do not say it could not be used in bulk, but I say we would not use it.

147. Deputy M. Doyle.—You do not consider 1/6 per lb. inducement enough to Irish manufacturers?—No, you could not reduce the price sufficiently for the public to induce them to buy it.

148. You would not like to give us figures that you would say would represent a sufficient inducement?—I would like to calculate that in order to see how much could be sold, how much profit could be given to the dealer, and how much for ourselves.

149. Deputy Egan.—The real difficulty is that you could use only ten per cent., and it would be difficult to pass anything on to the consumer unless the subsidy was big?—Yes.

Deputy Sears.

150. Do you speak on behalf of Irish tobacco?—No, I speak on behalf of our own firm only.

151. Are you an independent firm, and not connected with any association?—We are not connected with the Imperial Tobacco Company. We are an independent firm.

152. All Irish, and with no outside connection?—We are Irish, but are associated with Cope’s, of Liverpool.

153. Deputy Mulvany.—You are speaking for your own firm?—Yes, entirely for our own firm.

154. And not for the Irish manufacturers?—No.

Deputy Sears.

155. I understand from a short historical note we got about Irish tobacco that at one time it was extensively grown all over the country and supplied the leaf not only for Ireland but England?—I suppose so, but I do not know.

156. If that is the case one would conclude that in those days we were growing suitable tobacco?—You can grow suitable tobacco for London shag. It is manufactured in tons every day and is sent around like bread. It will not keep longer than two days. It is sold very cheaply.

157. You regard it as an inferior article?—It may not be inferior to other tobaccos in Europe but it is not equal to anything from America.

158. But it is not suitable to public taste at present?—It is only suitable in small quantities for blending with other tobaccos. There is plenty of American tobacco that would not be suitable by itself and it has to be blended.

159. I understand very little has been done by way of experiment to discover a plant suitable for Irish taste?—I think they have tried almost every plant suitable for growing in Ireland.

160. Is it that the climate or soil does not give us a plant?—I could not answer that. I am afraid it is the climate.

161. At all events, whether it is the climate or the soil, suitable tobacco has not yet been discovered. It is too rank? —It is too rank. Swedish tobacco is very much on the same lines.

162. Have you any hope, considering the climate and soil, of getting suitable tobacco for use at present?—It is a very hard question to answer. I do not think you can grow much better tobacco than you have grown already. I do not like to condemn it, but it is my opinion that better tobacco cannot be grown than has been already grown.

163. Deputy Egan.—Do you think it would be a good move on the part of the Government to encourage the growth of tobacco suitable for London plug?—You could always sell that tobacco in London.

164. There is a good market for it? —Yes, they could easily consume the whole crop grown in Ireland in a month in shag.

165. Deputy Mulvany.—I would like to draw your attention to this extract from the “Farmers’ Gazette” of the 27th November, 1909: “The Edenderry Guardians on Saturday received favourably a letter from Messrs. T. P. and R. Goodbody urging the advantage of the acceptance of Irish-made tobacco, and mentioning a blend which they supplied themselves with 50 per cent. of Irish leaf. They stated that the labour on ten tobacco farms last year amounted to over £2,000. In fact there was four times as much paid for labour on an acre of tobacco as on any other crop known.” So that in 1909 Messrs. Goodbody recommended to the Edenderry Board of Guardians a mixture with 50 per cent. of Irish leaf?— That was because they insisted on a 50 per cent. mixture. It turned out to be favourable. It was a condition at the time that all the Unions were to be supplied with tobacco with a blend of 50 per cent. of Irish leaf.

166. Deputy M. Doyle.—Was that plug or twist tobacco?—Twist.

167. Did you ever use any Burley Irish-grown?—No.

168. Deputy M. Doyle.—Mr. Goodbody has not had much experience of Irish-grown tobaccos as far as I can see, as he used only that grown by himself and Mr. Richardson.

169. Chairman.—We can discuss that after. We can only ask questions now. When did you cease to grow tobacco, Mr. Goodbody?—Mr. Richardson died. For the first two or three years it was grown in my name, and then it was grown in his name.

Deputy Sears.

170. How much a lb. would the grower get for shag tobacco?—Do you mean for the raw leaf?

171. Yes?—I would say the shag manufacturers are buying the American leaf for about 5d. or 6d.

172. Would that be a remunerative price for the Irish grower?—It would be a poor price.

173. He would have the preference?— Still, it would be a very poor price.

174. Would there be less labour involved for the grower of shag tobacco than for the other sort?—No, I think it would be about the same.

175. Chairman.—Have you got any figures as to what it cost you per acre?— I have not got the figures here, and I do not remember them. We had a bounty.

176. Deputy Cole.—You had in the first instance a bounty of 1/- per lb.?— Yes.

177. Does the 5d. paid for American leaf include the duty?—No; that is the short price. We can buy first-class American leaf, Burley, to-day for 7½d.

Deputy M. Doyle.

178. Burley would not be a first-class American leaf?—It is as regards quality. You can buy wrapper from 1/- to 1/6.

179. There is a vast difference in the price?—There is, because of the size of the leaf.

180. There is no difference in quality? —No, fillers are the short leaf of the crop; otherwise it is the same tobacco exactly.

181. It would be a great difference per acre for the grower if he could grow only filler?—Of course it would.

The Committee adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 11.