In the year 1731[182]there was a great deficiency in the public revenue, and the national debt had considerably increased. The exhausted kingdom lay under great difficulties by the decay of trade, thescarcity of money, and the universal poverty of the country, which the Speaker represents[183]in very affecting terms, in offering the money bills for the royal assent, and adds, “that the Commons hope, from his Majesty’s goodness, and his Grace’sfreeandimpartialrepresentation of the state and condition of this kingdom, thattheymay enjoy ashareof the blessings of public tranquillity by the increase of their trade, and the encouragement of their manufactures.”
But in the next session, of 1733, they are told in the speech from the throne, what this share was to be. The Lord Lieutenant informs them that the peace cannot fail of contributing to their welfare, by enabling them to improve those branches of trade and manufactures[184]whichare properly their own, meaning the trade and manufacture of linen. Whether this idea of property has been preserved inviolate will hereafter appear.
The years ’40 and ’41 were seasons of great scarcity, and in consequence of the want of wholesome provisions great numbers of our people perished miserably, and the speech from the throne recommends it to both Houses to consider of proper measures to prevent the like calamity for the future.The employment of the poor and the encouragement of tillage are the remedies proposed[185]by the Lord Lieutenant and approved of by the Commons, but no laws for those purposes were introduced, and why they were not affords matter for melancholy conjecture. They could not have been insensible of the miseries of their fellow-creatures, many thousands of whom were lost in those years, some from absolute want, and many from disorders occasioned by bad provisions. Why was no attempt made for their relief? Because the Commons knew that the evil was out of their reach, that the poor were not employed because they were discouraged by restrictive laws from working up the materials of their own country, and that agriculture could not be encouraged where the lower classes of the people were not enabled by their industry to purchase the produce of the farmer’s labour.
For above forty years after making those restrictive laws[186]Ireland was always poor and often in great want, distress, and misery,[187]though the linen manufacture had made great progress during that time.In the war before the last, she was not able to give any assistance. The Duke of Devonshire, in the year 1741, takes notice from the throne, that during a war for the protection of the trade of all his Majesty’s dominions there had been no increase of the charge of the establishment; and in the year 1745, the country was so little able to bear expense, that lord Chesterfield discouraged and prevented any augmentation of the army, though much desired by many gentlemen of the House of Commons, from a sense of the great danger that then impended. An influx of money after the peace, and the further success of the linen trade, increased our wealth, and enabled us to reduce by degrees, and afterwards to discharge the national debt. This was not effected until the first of March, 1754.[188]This debt was occasioned principally by the expenses incurred by the rebellion in Great Britain in the year 1715; an unlimited vote of credit was then given.[189]From the lowness of the revenue, and the want of resources, not from any further exertions on the part of the kingdom in point ofexpense, the debt of £16,106 11s.0½d., due in 1715, was increased at Lady-day,[190]1733, to £371,312 12s.2½d.That Government and the House of Commons should for such a length of time have considered the reduction and discharge of this debt as an object of so great importance, and that nearly forty years should have passed before the constant attention and strictest economy of both could have accomplished that purpose, is a strong proof of the weakness and poverty of this country, during that period.
After the payment of this debt, the wealth and ability of Ireland were greatly overrated, both here and in Great Britain. The consequences of this mistaken opinion were increased expenses on the part of government and of the country, more than it was able to bear. The strict economy of old times was no longer practised. The representatives of the people set the example of profusion and the ministers of the Crown were not backward in following it. A large redundancy of money in the Treasury, gave a delusive appearance of national wealth. At Lady-day, 1755, the sum in credit to the nation was £471,404 5s.6⅜d.,[191]and the money remaining in the Treasury of the ordinary unappropriated revenue on the 29th day of September, 1755,[192]£457,959 12s.7⅛d.But this great increase of revenue arose from an increase of imports, particularly in the year 1754, by which the kingdom was greatly over-stocked, and which raised the revenue in that year £208,309 19s.2¼d.higher than it was in the year 1748, when the revenue first began to rise considerably;[193]and though what a nation spends is one method of estimating its wealth, yet a nation, like an individual, may live beyond its means, and spend on credit which may far exceed its income. This was the fact as to Ireland in the year 1754, for some years before and for many years after; it appeared in an inquiry before the House of Commons in the session of 1755, that many persons had circulated paper to a very great amount, far exceeding not only their own capitals,[194]but that just proportion which the quantity of paper ought to bear to the national specie.[195]This gave credit to many individuals, who without property became merchant importers, and at the same time increased the receipts of the Treasury and lessened the wealth of the kingdom. At the very time that so great a balance was in the Treasury, public credit was in a very low way, and the House of Commons was employed in preparing a law to restore it. In ’54 and’55 three principal banks[196]failed, and the legislature took up much time in inquiring into their affairs, and in framing laws for the relief of their creditors.[197]Yet in this session, the liberality of the House of Commons was excessive. The redundancy in the Treasury had, in the session of 1753, occasioned a dispute between the Crown and the House of Commons on the question whether the king’s previous consent was necessary for the application of it. They wished to avoid any future contest of that kind, and were flattered to grant the public money from enlarged views of national improvements. The making rivers navigable, the making and improving harbours, and the improvement of husbandry and other useful arts, were objects worthy of the representatives of the people; and had the faithfulness of the execution answered the goodness of the intention in many instances, the public in general might have had no great reason to complain. Many of those grants prove the poverty of the country. There were not private stocks to carry on the projects of individuals, nor funds sufficient for incorporating and supportingcompanies, nor profits to be had by the undertakings sufficient to reimburse the money necessary to be expended. The Commons therefore advanced the money, for the benefit of the public; and it can never be supposed that they would have continued to do so for above twenty years, if they were not convinced that there were not funds in the hands of individuals sufficient to carry on those useful undertakings, nor trade enough in the kingdom to make adequate returns to the adventurers.
Having gone through more than half the century, it is time to pause. In this long gloomy period, the poverty of Ireland appears to have been misery and desolation, and her wealth a symptom of decline and a prelude to poverty; the low retiring ebb from the spring-tide of deceitful prosperity, has left our shores bare, and has opened a waste and desolate prospect of barren sand, and uncultivated country.
I have the honour to be, my Lord, &c.
Fourth Letter.
Dublin, 27th August, 1779.
My Lord,
The revenue, for the reasons already given, decreased in 1755,[198]fell lower in 1756, and still lower in ’57. In the last year the vaunted prosperity of Ireland was changed into misery and distress; the lower classes of our people wanted food;[199]the money arising from the extravagance of the rich was freely applied to alleviate the sufferings of the poor.[200]One of the first steps of the late Duke of Bedford’s administration—and which reflects honour on his memory—was obtaining a king’s letter, dated 31st March, 1757, for £20,000, to be laid out as his Grace should think the most likely to afford the most speedy and effectual relief to his Majesty’s poor subjects of this kingdom. His Grace, in his speech from thethrone, humanely expresses his wish, that some method might be found out to prevent the calamities that are the consequences of a want of corn, which had been in part felt the last year, and to which this country had been too often exposed; the Commons acknowledge that those calamities had been frequently and were too sensibly and fatally experienced in the course of the last year, thank his Grace for his early and charitable attention to the necessities of the poor of this country in their late distresses, and make use of those remarkable expressions,—“that they will most cheerfully embrace[201]everypracticablemethod to promote tillage.”[202]They knew that the encouragement of manufactures were the effectual means, and that these means were not in their power.
The ability of the nation was estimated by the money in the Treasury, and the pensions on the civil establishment, exclusive of French, which at Lady-Day, 1755, were £38,003 15s., amounted at Lady-Day, ’57, to £49,293 15s.[203]
The same ideas were entertained of the resources of this country in the session of 1759. Great Britain had made extraordinary efforts, and engaged in enormous expenses for the protection of the whole empire. This country was in immediate danger of an invasion. Every Irishman was agreed that she should assist Great Britain to the utmost of her ability, but this ability was too highly estimated. The nation abounded rather in loyalty than in wealth.[204]Our brethren in Great Britain, had, however, formed a different opinion, and, surveying their own strength, were incomplete judges of our weakness. A Lord Lieutenant of too much virtue and magnanimity to speak what he did not think, takes notice from the throne, “of the prosperous state of this country, improving daily in its manufactures and commerce.”[205]His Grace had done much to bring it to that state, by obtaining for us some of the best laws[206]in our books of statutes. But this part of the speech was not taken notice of, either in the address to his Majesty or to his Grace, from a House of Commons well disposed to give every mark of duty and respect, and to pay every compliment consistent with truth. The event provedthe wisdom of their reserve. The public expenses were greatly increased, the pensions on the civil establishment exclusive of French, at Lady-Day, 1759, amounted to £55,497 5s.;[207]there was, at the same time a great augmentation of military expense.[208]Six new regiments and a troop were raised in a very short space of time. An unanimous and unlimited address of confidence to his Grace,[209]a specific vote of credit for £150,000,[210]which was afterwards provided for in the Loan Bill[211]of that session, a second vote of credit in the same session for £300,000,[212]the raising the rate of interest paid by Government, one per cent., and the payment out of the Treasury[213]in little more than one year of £703,957 3s.1½d.,[214]were the consequences of those increased expenses. The effects of these exertions were immediately and severely felt by the kingdom. These loans could not be supplied by a poor country, without draining the bankers of their cash; three of the principal houses,[215]among them stopped payment; the three remaining banks in Dublin discounted no paper, and, in fact, did no business. Public and privatecredit, that had been drooping since the year 1754, had now fallen prostrate. At a general meeting of the merchants of Dublin, in April, 1860, with several members of the House of Commons, the inability of the former to carry on business was universally acknowledged, not from the want of capital, but from the stoppage of all paper circulation, and the refusal of the remaining bankers to discount the bills even of the first houses. The merchants and traders of Dublin, in their petition[216]to the House of Commons, represent “the low state to which public and private credit had been of late reduced in this kingdom, and particularly in this city, of which the successive failures of so many banks, and of private traders in different parts of this kingdom, in so short a time as since October last, were incontestable proofs. The petitioners, sensible that the necessary consequences of these misfortunes must be the loss of foreign trade, the diminution of his Majesty’s revenue, and what is still more fatal, the decay of the manufactures of this kingdom, have in vain repeatedly attempted to support the sinking credit of the nation by associations and otherwise; and are satisfied that no resource is now left but what may be expected from the wisdom of parliament, to avert the calamities with which this kingdom is at present threatened.”
The committee, to whom it was referred, resolve[217]that they had proved the several matters alleged in their petition; that the quantity of paper circulating was not near sufficient for supporting the trade and manufactures of this kingdom; and that the house should engage, to the first of May, ’62, for each of the then subsisting banks in Dublin, to the amount of £50,000 for each bank; and that an address should be presented to the Lord Lieutenant, to thank his Grace for having given directions that bankers’ notes should be received as cash from the several subscribers to the loan, and that he would be pleased to give directions that their notes should be taken as cash in all payments at the Treasury, and by the several collectors for the city and county of Dublin. The house agreed to those resolutions and to that for giving credit to the banks,nem. con.
The speech from the throne takes notice of the care the House of Commons had taken for establishing public credit, which the Lord Lieutenant says he flatters himself will answer the end proposed, and effect that circulation so necessary for carrying on the commerce of the country.[218]
Those facts are not stated as any imputation on the then chief governor: the vigour of his mind incited him to make the Crown as useful as possibleto the subject, and the subject to the Crown. He succeeded in both, but in the latter part of the experiment, the weakness of the country was shown. The great law which we owe to his interposition, I speak of that which gives a bounty on the land carriage of corn and flour to Dublin,[219]has saved this country from utter destruction; this law, which reflects the highest honour on the author and promoter, is still a proof of the poverty of that country where such a law is necessary. Its true principle is to bring the market of Dublin to the door of the farmer, and that was done in the year ending the 25th of March, 1777, at the expense of £61,789 18s.6d., to the public; a large but a most useful and necessary expenditure.[220]The adoption of this principle proves, what we in this country know to be a certain truth, that there is no other market in Ireland on which the farmer can rely for the certain sale of his corn and flour; a decisive circumstance to show the wretched state of the manufactures of this kingdom.
In the beginning of the next parliament the rupture with Spain occasioned a new augmentationof military expense. The ever loyal Commons return an address of thanks to the message mentioning the addition of five new battalions[221]and unanimously promise to provide for them; and with the same unanimity pass a vote of credit for £200,000.[222]The amount of pensions on the civil establishment, exclusive of French, had for one year ending the 25th of March, 1761, amounted to £64,127 5s.,[223]and our manufacturers were then distressed by the expense and havoc of a burdensome war.[224]
In the year 1762 a national evil made its appearance, which all the exertions of the Government and of the legislature have not since been able to eradicate; I mean the risings of the White Boys. They appear in those parts of the kingdom where manufactures are not established, and are a proof of the poverty and want of employment of the lower classes of our people. Lord Northumberland mentions, in his speech from the throne[225]in 1763, that the means of industry would be the remedy; from whence it seems to follow that the want of those means must be the cause. To attain this great end theCommons promise their attention to the Protestant charter schools and linen manufacture.[226]The wretched men who were guilty of those violations of the law, were too mature for the first, and totally ignorant of the second; but long established usage had given those words a privilege in speeches and addresses to stand for everything that related to the improvement of Ireland.
The state of pensions remained nearly the same[227]by the peace the military expenses were considerably reduced; of the military establishment to be provided for in the session 1763, compared with the military establishment as it stood on the 31st of March, 1763, the net decrease was £119,037 0s.10d.per annum; but as a peace establishment it was high, and compared with that of the 31st of March, 1756[228]being the year preceding the last war, the annual increase was £110,422 9s.5¼d.The debt of the nation at Lady Day, 1763, and which was entirely incurred in the last war, was £521,161 16s.6⅞d.,[229]and would have been much greater if theseveral Lord Lieutenants had not used with great economy the power of borrowing, which the House of Commons had from session to session given them.
That this debt should have been contracted in an expensive war, in which Ireland was called upon for the first time to contribute, is not to be wondered at, but the continual increase of this debt, in sixteen years of peace, should be accounted for.
The same mistaken estimate of the ability of Ireland that occasioned our being called upon to bear part of the British burden during the war, produced similar effects at the time of the peace, and after it. The heavy peace establishment was increased by an augmentation of our army in 1769, which induced an additional charge, taking in the expenses of exchange and remittance of £54,118 12s.6d.yearly, for the first year; but this charge was afterwards considerably increased, and amounted, from the year 1769 to Christmas, 1778, when it was discontinued, to the sum of £620,824 0s.9¼d., and this increased expense was more felt, because it was for the purpose of paying forces out of this kingdom.
As our expenses increased our income diminished; the revenue for the two years, ending the 25th of March, 1771,[230]was far short of former years, and not nearly sufficient to pay the charges of Government,and the sums payable for bounties and public works.[231]The debt of the nation at Lady-Day, 1771, was increased to £782,320 0s.0¼d.[232]The want of income was endeavoured to be supplied by a loan. In the money bill of the October Session, 1771, there was a clause empowering Government to borrow £200,000. Immediately after the linen trade declined rapidly; in 1772, 1773, and 1774, the decay in that trade was general in every part of the kingdom where it was established; the quantity manufactured was not above two-thirds of what used formerly to be made, and that quantity did not sell for above three-fourths of its former price. The linen and linen yarn exported for one year, ending the 25th of March, 1773,[233]fell short of the exports of one year, ending the 25th of March, 1771, to the amount in value of £788,821 1s.3d.At Lady-day, 1773,[234]the debt increased to £994,890 10s.10⅛d.The attempt in the Session of 1773,[235]to equalise the annual income and expenses failed, and borrowing on tontine in the Sessions of 1773, 1775, and 1777, added greatly to the annual expense, and to the sums of money remitted out of the kingdom. Thedebt now bearing interest amounts to the sum of £1,017,600, besides a sum of £740,000 raised on annuities, which amount to £48,900 yearly, with some incidental expenses. The great increase of those national burdens, likely to take place in the approaching Session, has been already mentioned.
The debt of Ireland has arisen from the following causes: the expenses of the late war, the heavy peace establishment in the year 1763, the increase of that establishment in the year 1769, the sums paid from 1759 to forces out of the kingdom, the great increase of pensions and other additional charges on the civil establishment, which, however considerable, bears but a small proportion to the increased military expenses, the falling of the revenue, and the sums paid for bounties and public works; these are mentioned last, because it is apprehended that they have not operated to increase this debt in so great a degree as some persons have imagined; for, though the amount is large, yet no part of the money was sent out of the kingdom, and several of the grants were for useful purposes, some of which made returns to the public and to the Treasury exceeding the amount of those grants.
When those facts are considered, no doubt can be entertained but that the supposed wealth of Ireland has led to real poverty; and when it is known, thatfrom the year 1751 to Christmas, 1778, the sums remitted by Ireland to pay troops serving abroad, amounted to the sum of £1,401,925 19s.4d., it will be equally clear from whence this poverty has principally arisen.
In those seasons of expense and borrowing the lower classes were equally subject to poverty and distress, as in the period of national economy. In 1762, Lord Halifax, in his speech from the throne,[236]acknowledges that our manufactures were distressed by the war. In 1763, the corporation of weavers, by a petition to the House of Commons, complain that, notwithstanding the great increase both in number and wealth of the inhabitants of the metropolis, they found a very great decay of several branches of trade and manufactures[237]of this city, particularly in the silken and woollen.
In 1765 there was a scarcity caused by the failure of potatoes in general throughout the kingdom, which distressed the common people; the spring corn had also failed, and grain was so high, that it was thought necessary to appoint a committee[238]to inquire what may be the best method to reduce it; and to prevent a great dearth, two acts were passed earlyin that session, to stop the distillery, and to prevent the exportation of corn, for a limited time. In Spring, 1766, those fears appear to have been well-founded; several towns were in great distress for corn; and by the humanity of the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Hertford, money was issued out of the Treasury to buy corn for such places as applied to his lordship for that relief.
The years 1770 and 1771 were seasons of great distress in Ireland, and in the month of February, in the latter year, the high price of corn is mentioned from the throne[239]as an object of the first importance, which demanded the utmost attention.
In 1778 and 1779 there was great plenty of corn, but the manufacturers were not able to buy, and many thousands of them were supported by charity; the consequence was that corn fell to so low a price that the farmers in many places were unable to pay their rents, and everywhere were under great difficulties.
That the linen manufacture has been of the utmost consequence to this country, that it has greatly prospered, that it has been long encouraged by the protection of Great Britain, that whatever wealth Ireland is possessed of arises, for the most part, from that trade, is freely acknowledged; butin far the greatest part of the kingdom it has not yet been established, and many attempts to introduce it have, after long perseverance and great expense, proved fruitless.
Though that manufacture made great advances from 1727 to 1758,[240]yet the tillage of this kingdom declined during the whole of that period, and we have not since been free from scarcity.
Notwithstanding the success of that manufacture, the bulk of our people have always continued poor, and in a great many seasons have wanted food. Can the history of any other fruitful country on the globe, enjoying peace for fourscore years, and not visited by plague or pestilence, produce so many recorded instances of the poverty and wretchedness, and of the reiterated want and misery of the lower orders of the people? There is no such example in ancient or modern story. If the ineffectual endeavours by the representatives of those poor people to give them employment and food, had not left sufficient memorials of their wretchedness; if their habitations, apparel, and food, were not sufficient proofs, I should appeal to the human countenance for my voucher, and rest the evidence on that hopelessdespondency that hangs on the brow of unemployed industry.
That, since the success of the linen manufacture, the money and the rents of Ireland have been greatly increased, is acknowledged; but it is affirmed, and the fact is of notoriety, that the lower orders, not of that trade, are not less wretched. Those employed in the favourite manufacture generally buy from that country to which they principally sell; and the rise in lands is a misfortune to the poor, where their wages do not rise proportionably, which will not happen where manufactures and agriculture are not sufficiently encouraged. Give premiums by land or by water, arrange your exports and imports in what manner you will; if you discourage the people from working up the principal materials of their country, the bulk of that people must ever continue miserable, the growth of the nation will be checked, and the sinews of the State enfeebled.
I have stated a tedious detail of instances, to show that the sufferings of the lower classes of our people have continued the same (with an exception only of those employed in the linen trade) since the time of Queen Anne, as they were during her reign; that the cause remains the same, namely, that our manufacturers have not sufficient employment, and cannot afford to buy from the farmer, and that thereforemanufactures and agriculture must both be prejudiced.
After revolving those repeated instances, and almost continued chain of distress, for such a series of years, among the inhabitants of a temperate climate, surrounded by the bounties of Providence and the means of abundance, and being unable to discover any accidental or natural causes for those evils, we are led to inquire whether they have arisen from the mistaken policy of man.
I have the honour to be, my Lord, &c.
Fifth Letter.
Dublin, 30th Aug., 1779.
My Lord,
Every man of discernment, who attends to the facts which have been stated, would conclude, that there must be some political institutions in this country counteracting the natural course of things, and obstructing the prosperity of the people. Those institutions should be considered, that as from the effects the cause has been traced, this also should be examined, to show that such consequences are necessarily deducible from it. For several years the exportation of live cattle to England[241]was the principal trade of Ireland. This was thought, most erroneously,[242]as has since been acknowledged,[243]to lower the rents of lands in England. From this, andperhaps from some less worthy motive[244]a law passed in England,[245]to restrain and afterwards to prohibit the exportation of cattle from Ireland. The Irish, deprived of their principal trade, and reduced to the utmost distress by this prohibition, had no resource but to work up their own commodities, to which they applied themselves with great ardour.[246]After this prohibition they increased their number of sheep, and at the Revolution were possessed of very numerous flocks. They had good reasons to think that this object of industry was not only left open, but recommended to them. The ineffectual attempt by Lord Strafford, in 1639, to prevent the making of broadcloths in Ireland,[247]the relinquishment of that scheme by never afterwards reviving it, the encouragement given to their woollen manufactures by many English Acts of Parliament from the reign of Edward III.[248]to the 12th of Charles II., and several of them for the express purpose of exportation; the letter of Charles II., in 1667, with the advice of his Privy Council in England, and the proclamation in pursuance of that letter, encouragingthe exportation of their manufactures to foreign countries; by the Irish statutes of the 13th Henry VIII. ch. 2; 28th Henry VIII. ch. 17; of the 11th Elizabeth, ch. 10, and 17th and 18th Charles II., ch. 15 (all of which, the Act of 28th Henry VIII. excepted, received the approbation of the Privy Council of England, having been returned under the Great Seal of that kingdom) afforded as strong grounds of assurance as any country could possess for the continuance of any trade or manufacture.
Great numbers of their flocks had been destroyed at the time of the Revolution, but they were replaced, at great expense, and became more numerous and flourishing than before. The woollen manufacture was cultivated in Ireland for ages before, and for several years after the Revolution, without any appearance of jealousy from England, the attempt by Lord Strafford excepted. No discouragement is intimated in any speech from the throne until the year 1698; Lord Sydney’s, in 1692, imparts the contrary. “Their Majesties,” says he,[249]“being in their own royal judgments satisfied that a country so fertile by nature, and so advantageously situated fortrade and navigation, can want nothing but the blessing of peace, and the help of some good laws to make it as rich and flourishingas most of itsneighbours; I am ordered to assure you that nothing shall be wanting on their parts that may contribute to your perfect and lasting happiness.”
Several laws had been made[250]in England to prevent the exportation of wool, yarn made of wool, fuller’s earth, or any kind of scouring earth or fulling clay from England or Ireland, into any places out of the kingdoms of England or Ireland. But those laws were equally restrictive on both kingdoms.
In the first year[251]of William and Mary certain ports were mentioned in Ireland, from which only wool should be shipped from that kingdom, and certain ports in England into which only it should be imported; and a register was directed to be kept in the Custom House of London of all the wool from time to time imported from Ireland. By a subsequent Act in this reign,[252]passed in 1696, the Commissioners or Farmers of the Customs in Ireland are directed, once in every six months, to transmit to the Commissioners of Customs in England, an account of all wool exported from Ireland to England, and this last Act, in its title, professes the intention of encouraging the importation of wool from Ireland. The prohibition of exporting the materials from either kingdom, except to the other,and the encouragement to export it from Ireland to England, mentioned in the title of the last-mentioned Act, but for which no provision seems to be made, unless the designation of particular ports may be so called, was the system that then seemed to be settled, for preventing the wool of Ireland from being prejudicial to England; but the prevention of the exportation of the manufacture was an idea that seemed never to have been entertained until the year 1697, when a bill for that purpose was brought into the English House of Commons,[253]and passed that house; but after great consideration was not passed by the Lords in that parliament.[254]There does not appear to have been any increase at that time in the woollen manufacture of Ireland sufficient to have raised any jealousy in England.
By a report from the Commissioners of Trade in that kingdom, dated on the 23rd of December, 1697, and laid before the House of Commons, in 1698, they find that the woollen manufacture in Ireland had increased since the year 1665, as follows:
The bill for restraining the exportation of woollen manufactures from Ireland was brought into the English House of Commons on the 23rd of February, 1697, but the law did not pass until the year 1699, in the first session of the new parliament. I have not been able to obtain an account of the exportation of woollen manufactures for the year 1697,[255]but from the 25th of December, 1697, to the 25th of December, 1698, being the first year in which the exports in books extant are registered in the Custom House at Dublin, the amount appears to be of
though this increase of export shows that the trade was advancing in Ireland, yet the total amount or the comparative increase since 1687 could scarcely “sink the value of lands and tend to the ruinof the trade and woollen manufactures of England.”[256]
The apprehensions of England seem rather to have arisen from the fears of future, than from the experience of any past rivalship in this trade. I have more than once heard Lord Bowes, the late chancellor of this kingdom, mention a conversation that he had with Sir Robert Walpole on this subject, who assured him that the jealousies entertained in England of the woollen trade in Ireland, and the restraints of that trade had at first taken their rise from the boasts of some of our countrymen in London, of the great success of that manufacture here. Whatever was the cause, both houses of parliament in England addressed King William, in very strong terms, on this subject; but on considering those addresses they seem to be founded, not on the state at that time of that manufacture here, but the probability of its further increase. As those proceedings are of great importance to two of the principal manufactures of this country, it is thought necessary to state them particularly. The lords represent, “that thegrowingmanufacture of cloth in Ireland[257]both by the cheapness of all sorts ofnecessaries for life, andgoodness of materials for making all manner of cloth, doth invite your subjects of England, with their families and servants, to leave their habitations to settle there, to the increase of the woollen manufacture in Ireland, which makes your loyal subjects in this kingdom very apprehensive thatthe further growthof itmaygreatly prejudice the said manufacture here; by which the trade of the nation and the value of lands will very much decrease, and the numbers of your people be much lessened here.” They then beseech his majesty “in the most public and effectual way, that may be, to declare to all your subjects of Ireland, that thegrowthandincreaseof the woollen manufacture hath long, and will ever be looked upon with jealousy by all your subjects of this kingdom;and if not timely remedied, may occasion very strict laws, totally to prohibit and suppress the same; and, on the other hand, if they turn their industry and skill to the settling and improving the linen manufacture, for which generally the lands of that kingdom are very proper, they shall receive all countenance, favour, and protection from yourroyal influence, for the encouragement and promoting of the said linen manufacture, toall the advantage and profit that kingdom can be capable of.”
King William in his answer says, “His Majestywill take care to do what their lordships have desired;” and the lords direct that the Lord Chancellor should order that the address and answer be forthwith printed and published.[258]
In the address of the Commons[259]they say, that “being sensible that the wealth and peace of this kingdom do, in a great measure, depend on preserving the woollen manufacture, as much as possible,entireto this realm, they think it becomes them, like their ancestors, to be jealous of theestablishmentandincreasethereof elsewhere; and to use their utmost endeavours to prevent it, and therefore, they cannot without trouble observe, that Ireland, dependent on, and protected by England in the enjoyment of all they have, and which is so proper for the linen manufacture, the establishment and growth of which there would be so enriching to themselves, and so profitable to England, shouldof lateapply itself to the woollen manufacture, to the great prejudice of the trade of this kingdom, and so unwillingly promote the linen trade, which would benefit both them and us.
“The consequence whereof will necessitate your parliament of England to interpose, to prevent the mischief thatthreatensus, unless your Majesty, by your authority and great wisdom, shall find means tosecure the trade of England by making your subjects of Ireland to pursue the joint interest of both kingdoms.
“And we do most humbly implore your Majesty’s protection and favour in this matter; and that you will make it your royal care, and enjoin all those you employ in Ireland, to make it their care, and use their utmost diligence, to hinder theexportation of woolfrom Ireland, except to be imported hither, and for the discouraging the woollen manufactures, and encouraging the linen manufactures in Ireland, to which we shall bealwaysready to give ourutmostassistance.”
This address was presented to his Majesty by the house: The answer is explicit: “I shall do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen trade in Ireland, and encourage the linen manufacture there; and to promote the trade of England.”
He soon after wrote a letter[260]to Lord Galway, then one of the lord’s justices of this kingdom, in which he tells him, “that it was never of such importance to have at present a good session of parliament, not only in regard to my affairs of that kingdom, but especially of this here. The chief thing that must be tried to be prevented is, that the Irish parliament takes no notice of what has passed in this here,[261]andthat you make effectual laws for the linen manufacture, and discourageas far as possiblethe woollen.” It would be unjust to infer from any of those proceedings that this great prince wanted affection for this country. They were times of party. He was often under the necessity of complying against his own opinion and wishes, and about this time was obliged to send away his favourite guards, in compliance with the desire of the Commons.
The houses of parliament in England originally intended, that the business should be done in the parliament of Ireland by the exertion of that great and just influence which King William had acquired in that kingdom. On the first day of the following session[262]the lords justices, in their speech, mention a bill transmitted for the encouragement of the linen and hempen manufactures, which they recommend in the following words: “The settlement of this manufacture will contribute much to people the country, and will be foundmuch more advantageous to this kingdomthan the woollen manufacture, which being the settled staple trade of England, fromwhence all foreign marketsare supplied, can never be encouragedherefor that purpose; whereas the linen and hempen manufactures will not only be encouraged as consistent with the trade of England, but will render thetrade of this kingdom both useful and necessary to England.”
The Commons in their address[263]promise their hearty endeavours to establish a linen and hempen manufacture in Ireland, and say that they hoped to find such a temperament in respect to the woollen trade here, that the same may not be injurious to England. They referred the consideration of that subject to the committee of supply, who resolved that an additional duty be laid on old and new drapery of the manufacture of this kingdom,[264]that shall be exported, friezes excepted; to which the House agreed.[265]But there were petitions presented against this duty, and relative to the quantity of it, and the committee appointed to consider of this duty were not it seems so expeditious in their proceedings as the impatience of the times required.[266]
On the 2nd of October the lords justices made a quickening speech to both houses, taking notice, that the progress which they expected was not made, in the business of the session, and use those remarkable words: “The matters we recommended to you are so necessary, and the prosperity of this kingdom depends so much on the good success of this session, that since we know his Majesty’s affairs cannot permityour sitting very long, we thought the greatest mark we could give of our kindness and concern for you, was to come hither, and desire you to hasten the despatch of the matters under your consideration; in which we are the more earnest, because we must be sensible, that if the present opportunity his majesty’s affection to you hath put into your hands be lost, it seems hardly to be recovered.[267]
On the 2nd of January, 1698, O. S. the House resolved that the report from the committee of the whole House, appointed to consider of a duty to be laid on the woollen manufactures of this kingdom, should be made on the next day, and nothing to intervene. But on that day a message was delivered from the lords justices in the following words: “We have received his majesty’s commands[268]to send unto you a bill, entitled an act for laying an additional duty upon woollen manufactures exported out of this kingdom; the passing of which in this session his majesty recommended to you, as what may be of great advantage for the preservation of the trade of this kingdom.”
The bill which accompanied this message was presented, and a question for receiving it was carried in the affirmative, by 74 against 34. This bill musthave been transmitted from the Council of Ireland. Whilst the Commons were proceeding with the utmost temper and moderation, were exerting great firmness in restraining all attempts to inflame the minds of the people,[269]and were deliberating on the most important subject that could arise, it was taken out of their hands; but the bill passed, though not without opposition,[270]and received the royal assent on the 29th day of January, 1698.
By this act an additional duty was imposed of 4s.for every 20s.in value of broadcloth exported out of Ireland, and 2s.on every 20s.in value of new drapery, friezes only excepted, from the 25th of March, 1699, to the 25th of March, 1702;[271]the only woollen manufacture excepted was one of which Ireland had been in possession before the reign of Edward III., and in which she had been always distinguished.[272]This law has every appearance of having been framed on the part of the Administration.[273]
But it did not satisfy the English parliament, where a perpetual law was made, prohibiting, from the 20th of June, 1699,[274]the exportation from Ireland of all goods made or mixed with wool, except to England and Wales, and with the licence of the Commissioners of the Revenue; duties[275]had been before aid on the importation into England equal to a prohibition, therefore this Act has operated as a total prohibition of the exportation.
Before these laws the Irish were under great disadvantages in the woollen trade, by not being allowed to export their woollen manufactures to the English colonies,[276]or to import dye stuffs directly from thence; and the English in this respect, and in having those exclusive markets, possessed considerable advantages.
Let it now be considered what are the usual means taken to promote the prosperity of any country in respect of trade and manufactures? She isencouraged to work up her own materials, to export her manufactures to other nations, to import from them the material for manufacture, and to export none of her own that she is able to work up; not to buy what she is capable of selling to others, and to promote the carrying trade and ship-building. If these are the most obvious means by which a nation may advance in strength and riches, institutions counteracting those means must necessarily tend to reduce it to weakness and poverty; and, therefore, the advocates for the continuance of those institutions will find it difficult to satisfy the world that such a system of policy is either reasonable or just.
The cheapness of labour, the excellence of materials, and the success of the manufacture in the excluded country,[277]may appear to an unprejudiced man to be rather reasons for the encouragement than for the prohibition. But the preamble of the English Act of the 10th and 11th of William III. affirms, that the exportation from Ireland and the English plantations in America to foreign markets, heretofore supplied from England, would inevitably sink the value of lands, and tend to the ruin of the trade and manufactures of that realm. I shall only consider this assertion as relative to Ireland. A fact uponwhich the happiness of a great and ancient kingdom, and of millions of people depends, ought to have been supported by the most incontestable evidence, and should never be suffered to rest in speculation, or to be taken from the mere suggestion or distant apprehension of commercial jealousy. Those fears for the future were not founded on any experience of the past. From what market had the woollen manufactures of Ireland ever excluded England? What part of her trade, and which of her manufactures had been ruined; and where did any of her lands fall by the woollen exports of Ireland? Were any of those facts attempted to be proved at the time of the prohibition? The amount of the Irish export proves it to have been impossible that those facts could have then existed. The consequences mentioned as likely to arise to England from the supposed increase of those manufactures in Ireland, had no other foundation but the apprehensions of rivalship among trading people, who, in excluding their fellow-citizens, have opened the gates for the admission of the enemy.
Whether those apprehensions are now well-founded, should be carefully considered. Justice, sound policy, and the general good of the British Empire require it. The arguments in support of those restraints are principally these:—That labouris cheaper, and taxes lower, in Ireland than in England, and that the former would be able to undersell the latter in all foreign markets.
Spinning is now certainly cheaper in Ireland, because the persons employed in it live on food[278]with which the English would not be content; but the wages of spinners would soon rise if the trade was opened. At the loom, I am informed, that the same quantity of work is done cheaper in England than in Ireland; and we have the misfortune of daily experience to convince us that the English, notwithstanding the supposed advantages of the Irish in this trade, undersell them at their own markets in every branch of the woollen manufacture. A decisive proof that they cannot undersell the English in foreign markets.
With the increase of manufactures, agriculture, and commerce in Ireland, the demand for labour, and consequently its price, would increase.[279]That price would be soon higher in Ireland than in England. It is not in the richest countries, but in those that are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are highest,[280]though the price of provisions is much lower in the latter; this, before the presentrebellion, was in both respects the case of England and North America. Any difference in the price of labour is more than balanced by the difference in the price of material, which has been for many years past higher in Ireland than in England, and would become more valuable if the export of the manufacture was allowed. The English have also great advantages in this trade from their habits of diligence, superior skill, and large capital. From these circumstances, though the Scotch have full liberty to export their woollen manufactures, the English work up their wool,[281]and the Scotch make only some kind of coarse cloths for the lower classes of their people; and this is said to be for want of a capital to manufacture it at home.[282]If the woollen trade was now open to Ireland, it would be for the most part carried on by English capitals, and by merchants resident there. Nearly one-half of the stock which carried on the foreign trade of Ireland in 1672, inconsiderable as it then was, belonged to those who lived out of Ireland.[283]The greater part of the exportation and coasting trade of BritishAmerica was carried on by the capitals of merchants who resided in Great Britain; even many of the stores and warehouses from which goods were retailed in some of their principal provinces, particularly in Virginia and Maryland, belonged to merchants who resided in Great Britain, and the retail trade was carried on by those who were not resident in the country.[284]It is said that in ancient Egypt, China, and Indostan, the greater part of their exportation trade was carried on by foreigners.[285]The same thing happened formerly in Ireland, where the whole commerce of the country was carried on by the Dutch;[286]and at present, in the victualling trade of Ireland, the Irish are but factors to the English. This is not without example in Great Britain, where there are many little manufacturing towns, the inhabitants of which have not capitals sufficient to transport the produce of their own industry to those distant markets where there is demand and consumption for it, and their merchants are properly only the agents of wealthier merchants, who reside in some of the great commercial cities.[287]The Irish are deficient in all kinds of stock, they have not sufficient for the cultivation of their lands, and are deficientin the stocks of master manufacturers, wholesale merchants, and even of retailers.
Of what Ireland gains, it is computed that one-third centres in Great Britain.[288]Of our woollen manufacture the greatest part of the profit would go directly there. But the manufacturers of Ireland would be employed, would be enabled to buy from the farmers the superfluous produce of their labour, the people would become industrious, their numbers would greatly increase, the British State would be strengthened, though probably, this country would not for many years find any great influx of wealth; it would be, however, more equally distributed, from which the people and the Government would derive many important advantages.
Whatever wealth might be gained by Ireland would be, in every respect, an accession to Great Britain. Not only a considerable part of it would flow to the seat of government, and of final judicature, and to the centre of commerce; but when Ireland should be able she would be found willing, as in justice she ought to be, to bear her part of those expenses which Great Britain may hereafter incur, in her efforts for the protection of the whole Britishempire. If Ireland cheerfully and spontaneously, but when she was ill able, contributed, particularly in the years 1759, 1761, 1769, and continued to do so in the midst of distress and poverty, without murmur, to the end of the year 1778, when Great Britain thought proper to relieve her from a burden which she was no longer able to bear, no doubt can be entertained of her contributing, in a much greater proportion, when the means of acquiring shall be open to her.
I form this opinion, not only from the proofs which the experience of many years, and in many signal instances has given, but the nature of the Irish Constitution, which requires that the laws of Ireland should be certified under the Great Seal of England, and the superintending protection of Great Britain, necessary to the existence of Ireland, would make it her interest to cultivate, at all times, a good understanding with her sister kingdom.
The lowness of taxes in Ireland seems to fall within the objection arising from the cheapness of labour. But the disproportion between the taxes of the two kingdoms is much overrated in Great Britain. Hearth-money in Ireland amounts to about £59,000 yearly, the sums raised by Grand Juries are said to exceed the annual sum of £140,000, and the duties on beef, butter, pork, and tallow exported,at a medium from 1772 to 1778, amount to £26,577 11s.yearly. These are payable out of lands, or their immediate produce, and may well be considered as a land-tax. These, with the many other taxes payable in Ireland, compared either with the annual amount of the sums which the inhabitants can earn or expend, with the rental of the lands, the amount of the circulating specie, of personal property, or of the trade of Ireland, it is apprehended would appear not to be inferior in proportion to the taxes of England compared with any of those objects in that country.[289]The sums remitted to absentees[290]are worse than so much paid in taxes, because a large proportion of these is usually expended in the country. If this reasoning is admitted, it will require no calculation to show that Ireland pays more taxes in proportion to its small income than England does in proportion to its great one.
Of excisable commodities, the consumption byeach manufacturer is not so considerable as to make the great difference commonly imagined in the price of labour. It is an acknowledged fact that Ireland pays in excises as much as she is able to bear, and that her inability to bear more arises from those very restraints. But supposing the disproportion to be as great as is erroneously imagined in Great Britain, it will not conclude in favour of the prohibition. The land-tax is nearly four times as high in some counties of England as in others, and provisions are much cheaper in some parts of that kingdom than in others, and yet they have all sufficient employment, and go to market upon equal terms. But a monopoly and not an equal market was plainly the object in 1698; it was not to prevent the Irish from underselling at foreign markets, but to prevent their selling there at all. The consequences to the excluded country have been mentioned. England has also been a great sufferer by this mistaken policy.
Mr. Dobbs, who wrote in 1729,[291]affirms that by this law of 1699, our woollen manufacturers were forced away into France, Germany, and Spain; that they had in many branches so much improved the woollen manufacture of France, as not only to supply themselves, but to vie with the English in foreign markets, and that by their correspondence, they hadlaid the foundation for the running of wool thither both from England and Ireland. He says that those nations were then so improved, as in a great measure to supply themselves with many sorts they formerly had from England, and since that time have deprived Britain of millions, instead of thousands that Ireland might have made.
It is now acknowledged that the French undersell the English; and as far as they are supplied with Irish wool, the loss to the British empire is double what it would be, if the Irish exported their goods manufactured. This is mentioned by Sir Matthew Decker[292]as the cause of the decline of the English, and the increase of the French woollen manufactures; and he asserts that the Irish can recover that trade out of their hands. England, since the passing of this law, has got much less of our wool than before.[293]In 1698, the export of our wool to England amounted to 377,520¾ stone; at a medium of eight years, to Lady-day, 1728, it was only 227,049 stone, which is 148,000 stone less than in 1698, and was a loss of more than half a million yearly to England. In the last ten years the quantity exported has been so greatly reduced, that in one of these years[294]itamounted only to 1007 st. 11 lb., and in the last year did not exceed 1665 st. 12 lb.[295]The price of wool under an absolute prohibition, is £50 or £60 per cent. under the market price of Europe, which will always defeat the prohibition.[296]