cious, to prove that fome special measures should be adopted, towards fecuring the purity of our elections of members to the Imperial Parliament. Of the fecond defcription is what you urge in page 70; where, because the English trader has now the Irish market at his door, you conclude, he will after Union continue to poffefs it; and found, on this hypothefis, an argument against the measure. ¶

Your premifes in page 72, I better underftand, than what is the conclufion, which you would deduce from them. You ftate the export of woollen cloth from Ireland to have diminished fo confiderably within this century, that in the last year it amounted to little more than one-tenth of what it had been in 1698. This merely proves that, of which we were not ignorant, and which feems not very much to the purpose, that the line of Irish trade has changed. Linen has, in the interval, become our staple, and its export, as you inform us,* was in 1796---eighty-eight times greater as to quantity, and one hundred and thirty-seven times greater as to value, than it had been in 1700.

But how does this prove that Union might not bring over British capital, to establish the woollen manufacture? You fay+ we put down our woollen trade to oblige England. If fo, with the affistance of her capital, we may take it up again, without fear of displeasing a country from which we fhall have ceafed to be distinct: whose jealoufies, by Union, we shall have swept away; and whofe interefts we fail have identified with our own. And here permit me to confefs a difficulty, which I have in reconciling your affertion, that the woollen manufacture cannot travel into Ireland,---with your statement, that the value of our woollen export was 1 10,000l. a hundred years ago ;§ and that even under the disadvantages of our prefent dearth of capital, woollen and cotton manufactures have been established fuccefsfully near Cork.

-

Suppose,

I am not overlooking this, that, by Union, the market of each country will be opened to the other: I mean only to say that when trade is advanced in this country, the Irish consumer may be supplied at home. * P. 105. † P. 83.

P. 69, 72. § P. 83. P. 97.

*

Suppofe, however, that this fhould not be fo :---that the great encrease of agriculture, and of the linen manufacture, giving a greater profit in land than fheep afford, the confe quence fhould be, that the British Settlers would not turn their capital to the woollen trade; but would engage in tillage, or the linen urade, or fatten poik for the provifion trade, (as you fay they have begun to do in England ;†) or enter upon any other commerce, more congenial to the circumftances, or habits of this country. What difference would this make? the object is that capital fhould be introduced into Ireland: not that it fhould be employed in this or that particular way. Capital (next to tranquillity) is the great commercial want of this country; and capital, by introducing expenfive machinery, would remove that obftacle to the establishment of the cotton trade here, which you ftate the great ufe of machinery in that manufacture to produce.-As to the ineffectual operation of Arkwright's patent as a bounty, I have already remarked, with respect to the conftructive bounty on imported iron, that the difturbed ftate of Ireland, and precariousness of its connexion, (as well as thofe habits of diftin&tnefs, which difcouraged the indifcriminate diffemination of capital through the entire Empire,) fupplied diffuafives, more than fufficient to countervail the effect of thefe light pecuniary inducements: and if Arkwright's patent has expired in England,---yet let Union. repeal the patent of Irifh Jacobinifm and fedition,-and I defy the effects of the ceafing of this bounty. In 1785, the Englifh cotton manufacturers "were under great anxiety and un"eafinefs, left the Irifh," (in confequence of an arrangement which partially and inadequately atchieved the commercial effects of Union,) "fhould draw over all their workmen, all their trade, and all their capitals; and be able to "underfel them in their own markets, by at leaft 131. per

་་

cent." It is probable that these apprehenfions were exorbitant but it is alfo likely that they were not altogether deftitute of foundation ---and how ftrangely do they contraft with your exclamations, against the abfurdity of fuppofing that the cotton manufacture might, after Union, be established here!

As

* P. 72.

+ P. 99.

P. 73. § P. 74.

As to linen, you admit it to be “an article, which, if "British capital could be induced over, would very obviously "invite it."*. -But could not British capital be induced to fettle here you answer no; because scarcely any has fetiled amongst us yet. This indeed is a reafon for defpairing that, fo long as Ireland remains in ftatu quo, English Wealth will overflow its banks for her enrichment: but it would be tedious to repeat what I have already stated,-the very adequate preventives to the importation of British Capital,-which our diftin&tnefs furnished, and which our Union must rémove: it would be tiresome and fuperfluous to infift upon the impoffibility of fhewing any fufficient caufe, (for its fcarcity will not be urged,) which, after Union, could reftrain British Capital from pouring into Ireland.

But it is mere parade, you think, to tell us that, in confequence of this measure, we fhall participate fully in the wealth and commerce of Great Britain. We are already as free to trade to all the world as fhe is.† Yes:-on our no capital, and our ne industry, we are at liberty to trade with all the world; and keeping civil and religious difcord for our home confumption, may export our traitors to Fort St. George, and deal in recruits with Pruffia.

"What port in the known world can a British ship go to from Britain, that an Irifh fhip cannot go with the fame σ cargo from Ireland? What article can á British ship import "into Britain or Ireland, that an Irish fhip cannot import "equally into Ireland or Britain? What manufacture can "Britain establish or encourage, which Ireland is not equally "free to do? If new fources of trade fhall be opened by con"queft or by treaty, do they not belong equally, and at the

fame inftant, to Ireland ?" I have adopted literally your own expreffions; and now would ask you, if your lift of queftions be not a lift of reafons, Why, after Union, British Capital should be vefted here? more efpecially if this country be, by nature, advantageously fituated for trade, (and that it is fo, eminently,

eminently, will not be denied,)-if the rate of labour and price of provifions be lower here than they are in England,— and if British Capital be grown too bulky for the prefent limits of its exertion.

In page 79, you proceed to thew that our commercial intercourfe with England is in a higher degree beneficial to that country, than to us. The evidence which you adduce of this, does not thoroughly bear you out:-for the ftatement, which you take from the Cuftom-houfe books, leaves a balance againft Britain; and as the Cuftom-houfe value" (you fay)" ferves "every purpose of proportion or comparifon," it feems as if you might have abided by it on this question of comparison : more particularly as it is the proof to which (p. 90) you have reforted, to fhew how good a customer this ifland is to Britain. To me, however, this adjustment of benefits feems fo little pertinent to the prefent enquiry,-and I am fo perfuaded that the Countries are mutually of incalculable value to each other,that I shall not enter farther into the difcuffion.

I might perhaps, upon the fame ground, decline reviewing your Enquiry whether our Linen Trade depends on the British Parliament; but yet muft be permitted to attend you, t fhortly, through this part of your investigation.

At first, (feemingly admitting that we are indebted to Britain !! for this manufacture,) you fay that she is bound by compact to encourage our Linen Trade. I am fure she is bound by interest to encourage this, and every other Irish fabrick; and I believe the fees what is her true intereft in this respect—but t what was the nature of this compact, or when or where it was entered into, you have not informed us; and I, for my part, "do not know, ing

$

The British measures which protect our Linen Trade, are, firft their duties on the foreign Linens; and fecondly, their bounty ** on the export of Irish Linens. Does not the continuance of thefe measures depend on the British Parliament? How then elo Budo ne ad flum as ea ̧cans:

3

can it be denied that our linen trade is foftered by their protection ? But neither duties nor bounties were given for us! To enquire fcrupulously into this would, I think, be very childish. Facts and confequences are obvious; but motives are more ab. ftrufe; and here the queftion is more as to the utility of the grant, than the generofity of the grantor. Now as to the value of a conceffion, affecting that linen, which, according to Mr. Pitt, conftitutes four-fifths, and according to you, about one half,* of our exports to all the world, no reasonable doubt can be entertained; and as to what you state, p. 85, in difparagement of British kindness, it feems to me to prove no more than this, that while fhe was encouraging our linen manufac-" ture, she also tried to ferve her own carrying trade.

I beg to decline following you in your enquiries into the refpective powers of Britain and Ireland, to hurt each other by a war of duties and prohibitions. You avow yourself that it is an unpleasant difcuffion; and I admit, that fo long as the two countries remain diflind, they have the power of interchanging injuries fo material, that it is not worth enquiring. which could do moft mifchief to the other; but would be better to deprive both of their noxious powers, and preclude all wars of duties and prohibitions, by an Union.

But Union, by encreafing the number of abfentees, would injure the trade and manufactures of Ireland! § Prove this to the British Minifter, and I will answer for his abandoning the measure. But if it does not " take great portion of the "men of property to England," and replaces thofe it takes, by an ufeful defcription of perfons, the ground of your apprehenfion about our trade will be removed: "No abfentee (you fay) "can expect to be elected a member of the United "Parliament; and every member must be a man of confider"able property."+-Is not the neceffary inference from your own statements this,-that if a feat in the United Parliament hall be, as it muft be, an object of ambition,-an inducement will be held out to men of confiderable property to refide

* P. 86.

H

SP. 91. ‡ Ibid.