CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VII.THE COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND EFFECTED BY THE ACT OF LEGISLATIVE UNION.

THE COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND EFFECTED BY THE ACT OF LEGISLATIVE UNION.

The commercial arrangements effected between England and Ireland at the time of the Union are embodied in the sixth article of the Act of Union. This article provides that in respect of trade and navigation the subjects of Great Britain and Ireland are to be on the same footing from the 1st of January, 1801; that there are to be no duties or bounties on the exportation of produce of one country to the other; that all articles (except certain specified articles scheduled, which were to be subject to certain countervailing duties) the produce of either country are to be imported free from duty; that articles enumerated in Schedule II. are to be subject for twenty years to the duties therein mentioned; that the woollen manufacturers are to pay on importation into each country from the other the duties now payable on importation into Ireland; that the duties on salt, hops, and wools are not to exceed the duties that were then paid on importation into Ireland; that the duties on calicoes and muslins are to be liable to the duties then payable on these commodities on importation from Great Britain to Ireland till the 5th of January, 1808; thatafter that date these duties are to be reduced to 10 per cent. till January 5th, 1821, and then to cease altogether; that duties on cotton-yarn and cotton-twist are to be liable to the duties then payable on these commodities[151]till January 5th, 1808; that these duties are to be reduced annually from that date, and on the 5th of January, 1816, to cease altogether; that the produce of either country, subject to internal duty, is, on importation into each country, to be subject to countervailing duty; that the produce of either country exported through the other is to be subject to the same charges as if it had been exported directly from the country producing it; that duties charged on the import of foreign or colonial produce into either country are, on their export to the other, to be drawn back so long as the expenditure of the United Kingdom shall be defrayed by proportional contributions, but that this provision is not to extend to duties on corn.

The Speaker of the Irish Commons—the Right Hon. John Foster (afterwards Lord Oriel)—was the chief among several able opponents of these regulations. In 1799 and in 1800 he made powerful speeches in opposition, and went largely into the subject of the commercial relations of the two countries, and exposed their past and future inequalities and injustices towards Irish interests. His objections to the 6th Article of Union were, briefly, as follows:—

"That they lowered all protecting duties that were above 10 per cent. to that amount, and thus exposed the infant manufactures of Ireland (which the Irish Parliament had in latter years begun to protect) to the overwhelming competition of the great capital and long-established skill and ability of England. That no less than seventy articles of our manufacture would thus be injured, and our cotton manufactures in particular, in which we had begun to make most promising advances, would be nearly ruined. That no preference over foreign goods in the British market was given. That the 'new and excessive' duties on salt were made perpetual, those on hops and coals unalterable. That our brewery was left unprotected, etc., etc."

The opponents of the Union drew up a solemn and elaborate protest in order to perpetuate on the records of Parliament, and hand down to posterity, their views on that subject. Lord Corry moved the Protest and Address to the King, which thus speaks of the commercial arrangements proposed and subsequently carried out under the provisions of the Act of Union: "Were all the advantages which without any foundation they have declared that this measure offers, to be its instant and immediate consequence, we do not hesitate to say expressly that we could not harbour the thought of accepting them in exchange for our Parliament, or that we could or would barter our freedom for commerce, or our constitution for revenue; but the offers are mere impositions, and we state with the firmest confidence that in commerce ortrade their measure confirms no one advantage, nor can it confirm any, for by your Majesty's gracious and paternal attention to this your ancient realm of Ireland, every restriction under which its commerce laboured has been removed during your Majesty's auspicious reign, and we are now as free to trade to all the world as Britain is. In manufactures, any attempt it makes to offer any benefit which we do not now enjoy is vain and delusive, and whenever it is to have effect, that effect will be to our injury. Most of the duties on imports which operate as protections to our manufactures, are under its provisions either to be removed or reduced immediately, and those which will be reduced are to cease entirely at a limited time, though many of our manufacturers owe their existence to the protection of those duties, and though it is not in the power of human wisdom to foresee any precise time when they may be able to thrive without them. Your Majesty's faithful Commons feel more than an ordinary interest in laying this fact before you, because they have under your Majesty's approbation raised up and nursed many of those manufactures, and by so doing have encouraged much capital to be vested in them, the proprietors of which are now to be left unprotected, and to be deprived of the Parliament on whose faith they embarked themselves, their families, and properties in the undertaking."[152]

Mr. Pitt could not have been ignorant of the effect which English competition would produce on the infant and practically unprotected manufactures of Ireland. Thus fifteen years previously, when introducing his Commercial Propositions of 1785 in the English House of Commons, he calmed the fears and raised the hopes of the English manufacturers:—

"It was said that our manufactures were all loaded with heavy taxes. It was certainly true, but with that disadvantage they had always been able to triumph over the Irish in their own markets, paying an additional ten per cent. on the importation to Ireland, and all the charges. But the low price of labour was mentioned. Would that enable them to undersell us? Manufacturers thought otherwise—there were great obstacles to the planting of any manufacture. It would require time for arts and capital, and the capital would not increase without the demand also, and in an established manufacture improvement was so rapid as to bid defiance to rivalship."[153]

The Irish Parliament, in wishing to protect their infant manufactures, were strictly within the lines of modern economic science. Thus Mr. John Stuart Mill speaks of the wisdom of protecting duties in countries whose conditions are similar to those of Ireland as described by Mr. Pitt:—

"The only case in which, on mere principles of political economy, protecting duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in the hopes of naturalising a foreign industry in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country. The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent advantage on one part or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire may in other respects be better adapted to the production than those that were earlier in the field; and, besides, it is a just remark of Mr. Rae that nothing has a greater tendency to promote improvements in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. But it cannot be expected that individuals should at their own risk, or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture and bear the burthen of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional. A protecting duty continued for a reasonable time will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. But the protection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will, after a time, be able to dispense with it, nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyondthe time necessary for a fair trial of what they are capable of accomplishing."[154]

The Irish manufactures, which had revived by the protecting care of the Irish Parliament, died when that safeguard was removed.

Mr. Bushe, who was eighteen years Solicitor-General under a Tory Administration, and twenty years Chief Justice of Ireland, thus briefly described in the Irish Parliament the course of policy pursued by England towards the "sister country":—

"For centuries have the British nation and Parliament kept you down, shackled your commerce, paralysed your exertions, despised your character, and ridiculed your pretensions to any privileges, commercial or constitutional."[155]

"I cannot think," says Mr. Chaplin, from his place in the English House of Commons, "that any reforms or remedial legislation that may be adopted (for Ireland) can be considered satisfactory or complete which do not include encouragement and, if necessary, assistance for the re-establishment of those industries which in former days were destroyed by the bitterly unjust and selfish policy of England."[156]

Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Salvage, London, E.C.

FOOTNOTES:[151]On importation from Great Britain to Ireland.[152]Mr. Whiteside read this Protest in his speech in defence of Mr. C. G. Duffy, in the State Trials, 1844. ("R.v.O'Connell," pp. 528, 529.)[153]"Parliamentary Register," xvii., pp. 255, 256.[154]"Principles of Political Economy," p. 556.[155]"Life of Plunket," ii., p. 354.[156]Hansard, 261, Third Series, p. 836.

[151]On importation from Great Britain to Ireland.

[152]Mr. Whiteside read this Protest in his speech in defence of Mr. C. G. Duffy, in the State Trials, 1844. ("R.v.O'Connell," pp. 528, 529.)

[153]"Parliamentary Register," xvii., pp. 255, 256.

[154]"Principles of Political Economy," p. 556.

[155]"Life of Plunket," ii., p. 354.

[156]Hansard, 261, Third Series, p. 836.

Back to Index Next