books-and the correct result appears to me to be as follows:-Restrictive taxes had been laid so far back as the period of the Edwards, on the importation of woollen goods into this kingdom, whether from Ireland, or any other country beyond seas. But not to go back to any earlier period than the Restoration, by the act of 12 Car. 2, chap. 4, s. 1, 8s. 6d. per yard were imposed on all woollen cloths, and 1s. 3d. on woollen stuffs imported into England. These last mentioned duties have never been repealed. They have, indeed, been increased to 1. 17s. 5d. per yard on cloth, and 5s. 6d. on stuffs, by the operation of new and general subsidies, affecting them in common with all other articles of importation. But the duty of 8s. 6d. per yard alone amounted, and would of itself still amount, to an entire prohibition. Thus stood the law at the period when the supposed bargain took place. The House will see that England did not then want the concurrence of Ireland, nor had any occasion to purchase that concurrence by any concession on her part, in order to exclude Irish woollens from her own home market. But, it seems, the English legislature and government of that time thought it good policy to listen to the representations made by the English manufacturers, of the danger their staple trade was exposed to from the competition of the Irish in foreign countries. The Irish parliament, on the other hand, seem to have been satisfied, that it was upon the whole for the interest of their country, to obtain the favour and protection of England to her linen manufactures, which had been even then carried to a considerable height, by an amicable understanding, and the relinquishment of that hostile competition in the woollen business abroad, which had occasioned so much ill-humour on this side of the water. Accordingly, they passed a law, in the 10th of W. 3rd, imposing an ad valorem duty of 4s. in the pound on all broad cloth, and 2s. on serges, baize, &c. exported from Ireland to any part of the world. This amounted, in effect, to a prohibition; but no act was passed in England on the occasion, to check or prohibit the exportation of English linens. Will it be said, Ireland had reason to expect such a law to pass? Where is the evidence of this? The English House of Lords,, in an address to the throne, had, indeed, pressed the king to declare, "that if the woollen trade were relin

$

quished in Ireland, and the subjects there should turn their industry and skill to the settling and improving the linen manufacture, for which generally the lands of that kingdom were very proper, they should receive all favour, countenance, and protection, from his royal influence, for the encouragement and promoting of the said linen manufacture to all the advantage and profit that kingdom could be capable of (9th June 1698)." The English Commons, in like manner, had implored the king to "make it his royal care to discourage the woollen, and encourage the linen manufactures in Ireland, to which they said they should always be ready to give their utmost assistance (30th June 1698)." And, the king, in answer, had said, "I will do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen manufacture in Ireland, and encourage the linen manufacture there (2nd July 1698)."

It was after this that the Irish act I have just mentioned passed. The English laws at that time, as to Irish linen, stood thus by the 7th and 8th W. 3, c. 39, Irish linen was made importable into England duty free; but a new subsidy of 5 per cent on all goods imported, having been granted in the year after to continue till the 1st Feb. 1699, without any exception as to Irish linen, that article became liable to this new duty: and from the state of the war in 1698, it was probable that this subsidy would be renewed, as it accordingly was from time to time, and continued for the life of queen Anne; it may therefore be conjectured that the great wish of Ireland, as to her linen trade, then was, a restoration to the exemption granted by the first-mentioned act, so as again to open a free market for her linens in England. This was not obtained during the remainder of William's reign; but by 1st Anne, stat. 2, c. 8, the importation of Irish linen into this country, duty free, was restored, and that has continued to be the law ever since. Is it not therefore probable that Ireland was satisfied with this freedom of importing her linen goods, exempt from duty, into Great Britain? At least the case certainly stands so on the face of the acts of parliament. The Irish act which was only temporary, expired in 1702, and was not renewed; but a very strong, and certainly harsh act, and not temporary, was passed in England (10th and 11th Will. 3, c. 10,), totally prohibiting the exportation of Irish woollens to any fo

reign country. The power of the English parliament to make such a law was at that time strenuously insisted upon in this country, and, if not acknowledged, at least acquiesced under in Ireland; so that this last-mentioned statute did in effect prevent the export to all foreign parts of Irish woollen cloths. While this continued to be the case, it might have been unjust, and a breach of faith in England or Great Britain to impose any duty which might have cramped or injured the exportation of Irish linens, either to this or to foreign countries; but that has been so far from being done, even to this day, that, on the contrary, besides the continuation of the free import, various British acts have given the same bounties to Irish as to British linens exported from hence; and by the imposition of a heavy tax on foreign linens brought into Great Britain, she gives in that respect also an equal premium to the Irish as to her own manufacture.

But does the condition on the part of Ireland still continue? Is her part of the supposed compact still in force? and did she, when Great Britain renounced the claim to bind her by her statutes, renew, by any law of her own, the prohibition of the exportation of her woollens? Quite the contrary. Before the boasted æra of her independency, in 1779 and 1780, she had wisely, boldly, and successfully addressed to the British government and parliament her complaint, that this restriction was injurious to the industry and prosperity of her people; and by the British act of 20th Geo. 3rd, c. 6, the statute of Wm. 3rd was repealed, and a free exportation of her woollens allowed from Ireland to all foreign places. It is the natural, obvious, and just observation of a writer on this subject, that " This law, of course, put an end to the compact between England and Ireland, respecting the woollen and linen manufactures." This country has, indeed, still continued her encouragement to the Irish linen trade, the free entry into Great Britain, and the bounties on exportation from thence; but she has done so without any tie, contract, or other obligation, but what the general principles of good policy may impose. One is therefore a good deal surprised to read, in Mr. Foster's Address to the Freeholders of the County of Lowth, the following words :-" If the linen manufacture rests at all on any compact, that compact was made with the

Irish parliament; the extinction of which takes away a security we have found adequate, and leaves it without the protection of its natural guardians.”* According to the same address we are to believe, it seems, that as the compact in 1698 was and is the security for the linen trade of Ireland with Great Britain, so the more solemn and important compact of 1782, not only supplied a new guarantee to that security, by confirming to the former the birthright of a sole and independent parliament, but also, by the same means, roused a new spirit of exertion in the traders and manufacturers in general of that kingdom, while a legislative union would at once destroy the independence of the parliament, because it would be no longer solely Irish, extinguish the spirit which had been awakened, and remove every safeguard of permanence to whatever advantages it might hold out as a temptation to those weak and deluded persons who might ignorantly form any opinion in its favour.

Much has been said and written on the subject of that transaction of 1782. It appears to me chiefly of importance now, in as far as it may afford evidence of what the opinions were which eminent statesmen on both sides of the water then entertained, many of whom must be still anxious to have those opinions rightly understood. But, if their present sentiments correspond with what they formerly thought, this uniformity will be a strong argument in favour of those sentiments, and in that point of view, it becomes certainly a matter of public concern also, to ascertain what they were. Whatever they were, however, they are not binding upon them; much less upon us, or upon either the Irish or British parliament. Nay, no act of either parliament at that time would be binding on those of the present day; and, therefore, had each legislature separately declared that they meant the arrangement, then made, to be such a final adjustment of all relations between the two countries, as that no nearer connexion, no legislative union in a word, should ever be formed between them, that declaration would not be obligatory now, nor stand in the way of the two present legislatures concluding such a union. But I think I can prove, that nothing which appears on the records, or usual reports of the pro

* Continuation of Anderson's History of Commerce, v. 4, p. 287.

it came to the resolution, and voted the address. I say they clearly were. What is the argument triumphantly pressed to show the contrary? Why, that the resolution and address were voted before the bill for repealing the Declaratory act of George 1st, and renouncing the claim to bind Ireland, was presented. [Mr. Foster's Speech, p. 19.] Surely, Sir, this is a strange fallacy.

ceedings in parliament, or on the face of the thing, shows that either party meant, on that occasion, to shut out in future all question of union, but quite otherwise; that the progressive improvement in the trade, manufactures, and general prosperity of Ireland since, has not been owing to that transaction; that this prosperity is not secured by it; that it depends, in a very principal degree, on the policy and wisdom of Great Britain; and that the only certain safeguard of its permanence would be found in that very measure, which it is pretended would have the contrary effect.

There were four grievances then stated on the part of Ireland: one and the principal of which was the claim of the British parliament to a legislative power over that kingdom. The messages from the throne to both parliaments (9th and 16th April, 1782) mentioned" the king's concern to find that discontents and jealousies were prevailing on matters of great weight and importance; and recommended that the same should be taken into consideration, in order to such a final adjustment as might give mutual satisfaction to both kingdoms." The addresses of the Irish House specified the four grievances," as the principal causes of the present discontent and jealousy" of that country. The only one of the four which a British act could redress, was the claim of legislation. On the 17th May, a resolution was come to in this House, that the act asserting that claim should be repealed, and immediately afterwards another, declaring it to be "indispensable to the interests of both king doms, that the connexion between them should be established by mutual consent on a solid and permanent basis." This last resolution, and the address by which it was communicated to his majesty, have given rise to a great deal of ingenious cavil and chicane. The right hon. gentleman who moved the present resolutions, in mentioning that address of 1782, had expressed what he had endeavoured to prove to be its true import and meaning, viz." that his majesty would take farther measures to strengthen the connexion between the two countries;" on which it has been remarked, with a hypercritical nicety, that the word "farther," is not in the address. Neither, I believe, is the word "strengthen." But the point is, whether the meaning was not, that measures ulterior to those then proposed were in the contemplation of the House when [VOL. XXXIV.]

The minister of the day, when he moved the two resolutions, is stated to have introduced them by a speech, mentioning the four grievances of Ireland, the claim of legislation, Poyning's act, the Mutiny bill, and the appellate jurisdiction. The first, he said, was to be redressed here, the others by acts to which the lord lieutenant was to be instructed to give the royal assent in Ireland; and after having explained this clearly and forcibly, he proceeded to express himself to the following effect:-"That Ireland could have no reason to complain; the terms acceded to by England were proposed by herself; the manner of redress had been prescribed by herself, and all her wishes would now be gratified in the way which she herself liked best; but as it was possible, that if nothing more was to be done, than what he had stated to be his intention, Ireland might, perhaps, think of fresh grievances, and rise yearly in her demands, it was fit and proper that something should be now done towards establishing, on a firm and solid basis, the future connexion of the two kingdoms. But that was not to be proposed by him here in parliament; it would be the duty of the Crown to look to that; the business might be first begun by his majesty's servants in Ireland; and if afterwards it should be necessary to enter into a treaty, commissioners might be sent from the British parliament, or from the Crown, to enter upon it, and bring the negotiation to a happy issue, by giving mutual satisfaction to both countries, and establishing a treaty which should be sanctioned by the most solemn forms of the constitutions of both."* After reading this, can it be seriously argued that no ulterior, no farther measures, were then in his contemplation and in that of the ministry, whose organ he was, and of which he formed so eminent a part?

This difficulty seems, indeed, to have been a little felt, and therefore another method is attempted of reconciling to

* Sec Mr. Fox's Speech, Vol. xxiii. p. 26. [3 K]