mons, had said, * I will do all that in me lies to discourage • the woollen manufacture in Ireland, and encourage the linen manufacture thereb."

It was after this that the Irish act I have just ntentioned paffed.

The English laws at that time as to Irifh linen stood. thus: by the 7th and 8th William III. c. 39. Irish linen was made importable into England duty free; but a new fubfidy of 5 per cent. on all goods imported, having been granted in the year after (8th and 9th William III. c. 24.) to continue till the 1ft of February 1699, without any exception as to Irish linen, that article became liable to this new duty; and from the ftate of the war in 1698, it was probable that this fubfidy 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 festoration to the exemption granted by the first-mentioned act, fo as again to open a free market for her linens in England.

That was not obtained during the remainder of William's reign; but early in the next, by 1 Ann. ft. 2. c. 8. the importation of Irish linen into this country duty free was restored, and that has continued to be the law ever fince.

Is it not therefore probable that Ireland was fatisfied with this freedom of importing her linen goods, exempt from duty, into Great Britain? At leaft the cafe certainly stands fo on the face of the Acts of Parliament; and

b Journals of the Houfe of Commons, vol. xii. p. 339. 2d July 1698.

befides

befides what I have already mentioned to fhew that they are the only fure evidence on fuch a fubject, have we not fufficient reafon, from the almost inextricable difcuffions which the hiftory of what paffed in both countries in 1782 has given rife tob, to avoid recurring for fupplementary proof of I know not what implied equitable or understood conditions and ftipulations, to anecdotes, harangues, or even entries which may be found on the Journals of either kingdom, but which gave rife to no legislative proceeding?

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 paffed in England (10th and 11th Will. III. c. 1o.) totally prohibiting the exportation of Irifh woollens to any foreign country. The power of the English Parliament to make fuch a law was at that time ftrenuously infifted upon in this country, and, if not acknowledged, at leaft acquiefced under in Ireland; fo 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 cafe, it might have been unjust, and a breach of faith in England or Great Britain, to impofe any duty, which might have cramped or injured the exportation of Irish linens, either to this or to foreign countries; but that has been fo far from being done, even to this day, that, on the contrary, befides the continuation of the free import, various British acts have given the fame bounties to Irish as to British linens exported from hence; and by the impofition of a heavy tax on

The ground taken by the opponents of a Union, has rendered those difcuffions, in regard to the transactions of that period, unavoidable.

foreign

foreign linens brought into Great Britain, fhe gives in that respect also an equal premium to the Irish as to her. own manufacture. The bounty paid from the revenue of Great Britain on Irish linens exported has been computed to be, upon an average, upwards of 34,000l.

But does the condition on the part of Ireland still continue? Is her part of the fuppofed compact ftill in force; and did fhe, 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 boafted æra of her independency, in the year 1779 and 1780, the had wifely, boldly, and fuccefsfully addreffed to the British Government and Parliament her complaint, that this reftriction was injurious to the industry and profperity of her people; and by the British act of 20 George III. c. 6. the ftatute of William III. 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 fubject, that This law, of course, put

an end to the compact between England and Ireland, ⚫ refpecting 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 fhe has dane fo voluntarily, and without any tie, contract, or other obligation, but what the general principles of good policy may impofe. One is therefore a good deal furprised to read in the addrefs of a gentleman in Ireland, peculiarly distinguished for his knowledge in such matters, to his conftituents, the following words:

Continuation of Anderson's Hist, of Commerce, vol. iv. p. 287.

If the linen manufactory refts at all on any compact, that compact was made with the Irish Parliament; the ex'tinction of which takes away a security we have found ade< quate, and leaves it without the protection of its natural guardiansa.'

According to the fame address we are to believe, it feems, that as the compact in 1698 was and is the fecurity for the linen trade of Ireland with Great Britain, fo the more folemn and important compact of 1782, not only fupplied a new guarantee to that fecurity, by confirming to the former the birthright of a foleb and independent Parliament, but also, by the fame 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 lon

a Mr. Fofter's Addrefs to the Freeholders of the County of Louth, 15th January 1799. The actual exiftence of fuch a compact has been more strongly and directly afferted fince. Britain is bound in every in⚫stance to encourage our linen trade by compact, so strongly manifest in ⚫ the proceedings of both Parliaments, as cannot be denied.' Mr. Fifter's Speech' p. 83.

b It appears to me that the word fole' may bear a sense materially dif ferent as ofed in this addrefs, and as it ftands in that of the Irish House of Commons in 1782, to which this refers. The words of this address to the electors of Louth are: The House of Commons stated to his Majesty in 1782, that the very effence of our liberties exists in the right of a fole Le" giflature, the Parliament of Ireland.' This conveys to me the idea of a legislature which folely has jurifdiction over Ireland. The addrefs of 1782 fays, Ireland is a distinct kingdom with a Parliament of her own, the fole legislature thereof,' This only expreffes, as I understand it, that the Irish Parliament alone, without any concurrent right elsewhere, was the legislature of Ireland, without implying that that Parliament cannot be incorporated with that of Great Britain.

ger

ger folely Irish, extinguish the spirit which had been awakened, and remove every fafeguard of permanence to whatever advantages it might hold out as a temptation to those weak and deluded perfons who might ignorantly form any opinion in its favour.

Much has been faid and much written on the fubject of that tranfaction 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 ftatefmen on both fides of the water then entertained, many of whom must be ftill anxious to have those opinions rightly understood. But, if their present fentiments correfpond with what they formerly thought, this uniformity will be a ftrong argument in favour of thofe fentiments, 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 lefs upon us, or upon either the Irish or British Parliament. Nay, no act of either Parliament of that time, would be binding on those of the present day; and therefore had each Legiflature feparately declared that they meant the arrangement, then made, to be fuch a final adjustment of all relations, between the two countries, as that no nearer and more intimate connexion, no legislative Union in a word, fhould ever be formed between them, that declaration would not be obligatory now, nor ftand in the way of the two prefent Legislatures entering upon, and, if for the benefit of both nations, concluding fuch a legiflative Union. I am unwilling to go far into the controverfy on the circumftances of that bufinefs. Others, in all reípects more competent, have discussed it at large, and it will probably be still farther elucidated this night.

But