'II LEAIHARLAMH LA!R, NAMBrXithreCriost; , i AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. BY JOHN O'CONNELL, ESQ, M.P. " Resolved unanimously— That a claim of any body of men, other than the Kino, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to hind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance."— i>!/n^aJM!OM Volunteers, February Ihth, 1782. SECOND EDITION. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LOYAL NATIONAL REPEAL ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND. DUBLIN: JOHN BROWNE, 21, NASSAU-STREET. 1847. JJ/f EGSTON COllF^f LIBRARIES CHESTNUT HiLL, MA 02167 MAY t 2 1088 PREFACE. The present compilation will, I am well aware, be found, on perusal, to betray evident marks of haste and want of sufficient care ; but, I trust, not of wilful misstatement, or any important inaccuracy as to facts or principles enunciated. It has been put together at irregular times, with occasional long intervals, according as the vicissitudes of an active political agitation allowed some compara- tive leisure to those engaged in it, or required from the humble, as well as from the more able and dis- tinguished of its promoters, an increase of action and attention. I have been deprived, by a fortuitous circumstance, of the period of general revision, to which I had looked, and on which I had counted, to enable me to correct and amend what may be defective throughout a2 IV PREFACE. the work. The circumstance to which I allude is, the necessity of my close and constant attendance (as one of the traversers) from an early hour of every morning to a late hour in the afternoon, upon the present state trials in Ireland. To delay the appearance of the work for some months longer would have been, in some measure, to defeat its object, which was, to have before the public, from an early period of the approaching parliamentary session, a compilation, as compact as possible, of the leading facts and arguments bearing on the question of the Repeal of the Union. . JOHN O'OdNNELL. Tuesday, January \Qth, 1844, Court of Queens Bench. -. - t^ LEABHARLAS^I \-ff%- TREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In this edition there have been several amendments of inaccuracies occasioned by the haste with which the author had to send the first to press, and a con- siderable addition has been made to the table of con- tents, as well as a thorough revision of what was given before. The remarks at the end upon the present distress of Ireland, and the proposed remedies for it, as well as the summary historical Sketch of Poor Laws since their first institution in England, will not be thought inappropriate at this crisis, when the public mind is so occupied with those topics. JOHN O'CONNELL. Dublin, Nov. 26, 1846. CONTENTS. Page. iii V 1 19 28 Preface Preface to the Second Edition An Argument for Ireland — Chapter I. Chapter II. Chapter III. Appendix, No. 1 The Inadeqiiate Representation Grievance 49 Addenda, No. 1. ... ... ••• 68 No. 2. ... ... ... 71 Appendix, No. 2 The Regency Question ... ... 73 No. 3 The Irish Legislative Independence Con- troversy ... ... ... 77 Addendum ... ... ... ••■ 109 No. 4 The Commercial Injustices ... ... 153 Addenda ... ... ... ... 251 No. 5. — Means by which the Union was carried... 277 No. 6.— The Taxation Injustice ... ... 289 Addendum ... ... ... ... 367 No. 7. — The Church Temporalities Grievance ... 373 Miscellanea ... ... ... ... 383 Concluding Remarks ... ... ... ... 395 History of Poor Laws in England . . . 405 Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland ... 427 Lords' Protest against the Union ... ... ... 469 Mr. O'Connell's Plan for the Re-construction of the Irish Parliament ... ... ... ... 473 Index ... ... ... ... ... 485 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. CHAPTER I. The foundation of all society is the yielding up by indi- viduals of a portion of their natural liberties, in order to obtain protection and security for the remainder. As those liberties are the gift of the Deity, it will not be denied that his gracious design in granting them, is best and most re- verently followed out where the portion yielded is small and limited in degree. A general test is thus supplied for judging of the respective merits or demerits of the systems of government prevalent in the various societies or nations of the world. But in the particular application of this test, there are circumstances to be taken into account, which are held to justify the greater amount of restrictions upon natural liberty in some countries than in others. These exceptionable cases are mainly reducible to two — the first, where a people are alleged to have used their powers in a manner detrimental to the great community of nations ; the second, where they are said to be incapable of rightly managing their own affairs. A wide field opens here for abuse ; and accordingly many and flagrant have been the abuses, and the gross and crying injustices, that have been committed under cover of those pleas. The external interference employed to effect a AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. remedy in the first case, lias ever been pushed beyond all fair and reasonable limit ; and thus, under pretext of elimi- nating one evil of doubtful existence, the seed has been sown, recklessly, or with deliberate malignity, of a thou- sand certain and deadly mischiefs. Nations banded toge- ther to repress and punish wanton aggression by an indi- vidual member of their great community, have not stayed their hands with the execution of this lawful purpose, but gone on to invade and destroy the innoxious and rightful liberties of the aggressor. And in the case of alleged in- capacity of a particular nation to manage their own affairs, the charge had been brought forward with dishonest vague- ness, and adjudicated upon with indecent haste, by a party interested, which has then not hesitated to employ force and fraud to carry into effect its own unwarrantable deci- sions, and to enable it to trample upon the rights and the happiness of the accused. The task upon which we are about to enter, is the appli- cation of the general test we have enumerated, to the poli- tical condition of Ireland — to see in how far the principles of justice may in her case have been regarded and respected, or violated and outraged. That Ireland suffers under a restriction of her rights, is a position requiring little proof. No country can be said to enjoy her natural measure of rights, whose people have not a prevailing voice in the passing of the laws which affect them. The Irish people have not that voice ; for not only have they been deprived of their own parliament, but the share of representation allotted to them in the imperial par- liament is most unjustly small and disproportionate. Out of 658 members of the united legislature, Ireland numbers but 1 05 ; and the occasions have not been few, when, in consequence of this disproportion, their voices have been overruled, and their will set at naught — and this too upon AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. questions of extreme importance to Irish interests — by the voices and the will of the overwhelming majority of the members for Great Britain. The grounds alleged at the Union for this disproportion will be found in the Appendix to this Report, article No. 1 , which also contains data for its proper adjustment, and some details of its injustice, as exemplified on a comparison be- tween parliamentary districts in Great Britain and Ireland respectively. But in speaking of an adjustment by a new arrangement of proportions in the imperial parliament, we must be un- derstood as speaking of only a temporary expedient, and by no means as recognizing or admitting the soundness of the principle of united legislation. In fact we touch upon the matter at all, only as it helps the better to illustrate the extreme injustice that has been done us in this respect. Were it a topic to be enlarged upon, we should first settle the important question — would England allow of an alter- ation in the relative proportions — at least to any extent of importance and value ? The strong probability is to the contrary ; for not only have those writers and speakers in England, who assume the designation of " Friends of Ire- land," and declare their anxiety that our claims to equality in civil rights should be attended to, never once proposed an addition to our members, but whenever such a project has been even hinted at, the organs of public opinion in England have loudly and unanimously declared against it. Even the paltry addition of five, given by the reform bill to the Irish representatives, received most strenuous opposi- tion ; and when we find (see the article already referred to) that the most humble estimate of justice to Ireland in the matter of parliamentary representation, would require an addition of, at the very least, fifty members to her present number, (and of course an equivalent subtraction from the B 2 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. English roll,) there scarce can be a doubt but that the pro- position of altering in favour of Ireland the existing propor- tions in the imperial parliament would be rejected at once. But taking the case at the best — were we to be so unex- pectedly favored, as to be given a large concession in this respect, yet as upon any proportionate calculation, our number should be an inferiority to the British, Ireland would still be under grievous disadvantage, as upon any international question, her will could be coerced, and her interests jeopardied, or totally sacrificed. Thus the grand defect in the system of united legislation would, upon all questions of magnitude, demonstrate itself as flagrant and mischievous as ever. The parliamentary representation of Ireland being thus indisputably defective, does any reason exist why it should be so ? Do either of the cases which are held to justify the modified application of the test we have specified, exist Avith regard to Ireland ? Did she use her powers in a manner detrimental to the great community of nations ? Or had she shown any incapacity of rightly managing her own affairs ? That her legislative independence was an injury to foreign nations need not be discussed, as it never has for a moment been pretended. Many, however, assert that it was of injury to England and to the empire, for which opinion they assign the following pretexts — first, that it prevented a unity of action with England ; second, that it left a door open to foreign intrigue and domestic confusion ; and third, that it unjustly exempted Ireland from her pro- per share of the burthens of the empire. We proceed to examine these pretexts in their order. The only established fact that has been put forward in support of the first of them is, that the respective parlia- ments of Great Britain and Ireland differed in the year AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. Q 1789 upon the subject of the Regency, then under discus- sion, in consequence of the first and temporary alienation of mind of George the Third. A succinct account of this difference will be found in article No. 2 of the Appendix, and therefore nothing further need be said here on the subject, save that it is now generally allowed that the Irish Parliament took the more constitutional view of the ques- tion. Its recurrence, in the event of a restoration of the Irish Parliament, Avould be provided against by the consent that Ireland would be found ready to give to an arrange- ment that should leave the selection of a Regent solely to the British parliament. This she might do with great advantage from the obviating of a source of jealousy, dissensions, and confusion, and with no real constitutional disadvantage ; inasmuch as the control over the finance of their country would still be with the Irish representatives, and consequently the means in their hands which the con- stitution has provided for holding despotism in check, and carrying into effect the will of the people, even where di- rectly in opposition to that of their ruler. With regard to any other differences that may be Difference alleged, either to have occurred, or to have been inevitable, parliaments had the parliaments continued separate, our answer is short, derea on The mere fact of their occurrence cannot be considered abstractedly from the question as to which parliament was right, and which parliament was wrong in the matter of dispute. England had in 1782, by the repeal of the 6th Geo. I., (the act which declared the power of her laws to bind Ireland,) and still more by a statute of the next year, 1783, (23 Geo. III., c. 28,) coupled with the declaration of her minister, Mr. Fox, in the former year, (assented to by the parliament he addressed,) acknowledged the right of Ireland to independent legislation ; and therefore, of course, her right to adopt whatever measures of policy she chose. P AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. irrespective of what might be the opinions of other parts of the empire. ference^^" The Only pretence of differences, other than treated of in a)mmeiciai ^ preceding paragraph, is as to commercial arrangements. menK^' That the countries did not pull together on this subject is Certain — at least from the year 1785 out. But with whom Shun "^as the fault ? England, according to Mr. Pitt, in 1785, the^conftsl- (whcu moving the celebrated " Commercial Propositions" ireCndln ^ of that ycar, for an account of which, see Appendix No. 4,) cuiarsr"'' wanted to " resume the ignorant and unsystematic conces- sions she had made to Ireland in 1779 — 80, when the pressure of adverse external circumstances (see the same Appendix) forced the British parliament to do away with the greater part of the then existing most cruel restrictions on the trade of Ireland, and to alloAV her freedom of foreign and colonial trade. It was to the latter that Mr. Pitt particularly referred, as he declared at the same time that foreign trade was the " natural right of Ireland," and " no favour or concession." In this declaration he only con- firmed the words^of Lord North, when minister, in Decem- ber, 1779. But though he appeared to limit his aim to recovery of control of the colonial trade, an examination of the tendency of the " propositions" above alluded to, will shew, that in reality he sought again to hamper all the trade of Ireland, and make her subservient in this respect to the will and supposed interests of her jealous neighbour. This was plainly an improper object, and Ireland was in the right in resisting and defeating it. Not even with regard to the colonial trade was his conduct justifiable. Ireland had contributed with blood and treasure to the acquisition of the British colonies, and for upwards of twenty years previous to 1779 had supplied, and in every Avay maintained, a large military contingent for their protection. And she had done this while utterly AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. ( denied all commerce with them ; and, therefore, of course, all benefit from their annexation to the empire. And when in 1780 she was allowed trade with them, she most dearly- paid for the concession, hy giving their ■products the mono- poly of her market, when she could have cheaper supplied herself from foreign colonies. In short, unless the monstrous proposition can be sus- tained, that the rightful exercise of rightful liberties by one nation is an injury to another, no case can be made against Ireland from anything that occurred in the period 1780 — 1800. At a future stage, we shall consider the question of possible international differences after Repeal. The next pretext we have now to notice is, that the le- f^^"" uaw-" gislative independence of Ireland left a door open to foreign refg^^inCa- intrigue and domestic confusion. me"tre"re-^" Generalities, when resorted to in advocacy of liberal '^*^'^"'"- principles, are usually met with derision and disregard by the opponents of those principles. But the very men who slight them when so employed, will be found to have resort to the vaguest general assertions themselves, when advo- cating measures of their own. Few assertions can be more vague, and none less supported by facts, than that embo- died in the pretext we are noticing ; yet not only when originally invented was it eagerly laid hold of and em- ployed ; but even at the present day it is a favorite with those who seek to wrest and pervert the history of the past into an argument against the fairest and justest projects of the future. This pretext was particularly employed during the de- bates upon the Union ; when with impudent and reckless disregard of facts, it was flung in the teeth of the defenders of the Irish parliament, — a parliament whose fault certainly ^^..^^ ^^.^.^ was not a want of will and effort — and most successful "Y'"* '••^p*^"- etl tne one, effort — to repel foreign invasion and crush domestic rebel- ?]"« otuer!"^ O AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. lion. Had the government been as true to its duty in these points as was the Irish parliament, the rebellion would never have occurred : the rebellion having been, as is now established beyond controversy (see Appendix, No^ 6), fomented by the government for the purpose of creat- ing a favourable state of things for compelling Ireland to a legislative union. It is now clearly established that that rebellion was suffered to go on, growing and gathering, for fully eleven months after clear and positive intelligence had been given to the authorities of its existence ; and of the names, intention, and actions of the chief persons who were engaged in it. The parliament of Ireland spared no effort to crush it when known ; and hesitated at no expense, as the votes of the day, and the enormous public expenditure during the last few years of that parliament, can abund- antly testify ; and the results were, as we have said, the repulsion of foreign invasion, and, despite the most criminal tardiness of the executive, the complete putting down of rebellion at home. These results were never disputed, as they never could be, — neither was any specific reason attempted to be as- signed, why the recurrence of external or domestic disturb- ances could be rendered less likely by abolishing a body, who, living in Ireland, knew the country, and were upon the spot, ready and prompt to crush those disturbances again as they did before, and substituting for them a par- liament composed, for upwards of five-sixths of the whole, of persons totally ignorant of Ireland, and dwelling and legis- lating hundreds of miles from her shores. Passing this most frivolous of the many frivolous and Third pre ^ ^ ... text : Ire- fljmsv arffumeuts against Irish independence, we address land undidy J ts n i ■' ^ exempted oursclvcs to the last of the three special pretexts, of the in- trom public ^ ^ '■ burthens, compatibility of the latter with the interests of England and of the empire. This pretext is, that under her own AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 9 parliament Ireland was saved exempt from a due share of the general bm"thens. There is, to an Irishman, a prima facie recommendation of the state of things prior to the Union, in this confes- sion of the comparative light pressure upon Ireland, of the imperial burthens under that regime. Yet Irishmen will not be found to be so unfair as to stand up for an undue exemption at any time* But the fact is, that so far from unfouaded. her financial exertions having been too limited, she actually crippled herself by her eiforts to be of assistance to England. Her debt — which like to that of England, originated in the reign of William III., was no more than £16,000 in the year 1715 ; by the year 1721 it had increased to £77,260, in consequence, as will be seen on reference to the official records of the time, of the exertions of her parliament to strengthen the hands of the monarch in the unsettled times, after the first Scottish insurrection in favour of the exiled Stuarts. This amount, small as it would now be consi- she con- trsctcd. her dered, or might even then be, to a rich country, yet was of national , , . _ . flebt in as- sucli importance and magnitude to Ireland, as to be noticed sisting Eng- . land, whose with grave anxiety by the then Viceroy, the Duke of po"cy had , , " impoverish- Bolton, in his speech from the throne. Its importance ';f ^°ifj?"P' proceeded from the impoverished condition of the country, the resources of which had been wasted by the violence of the civil convulsions which had so rapidly succeeded each other in the preceding century. The country had been placed almost beyond the possibility of recovery from their effect, by the tyrannically unjust commercial restrictions which marked the reigns of Charles the Second and Wil- liam the Third. We have again to refer the reader to article No. 4, for particulars, not only as to the enactment of those restrictions, but as to their operation for evil of themselves, and with the concurring evil influence upon the springs of industry, of the penal laAvs. land under this policy. Yet she 10 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. „ ^ ^ The ruinous aojencles we have there set forth as tending Continued t? o •metched- ^q crush Irish manufactures, continued their disastrous ness of Ire- ' operation uninteruptedly, and the consequence was, the continually increasing impoverishment of Ireland. Suc- cessive parliaments and successive viceroys iterated and reiterated complaints of this poverty during the forty suc- ceeding years. And yet, so great was the anxiety to assist hw^sdfto England, that we find the Irish parliament about the year tfas^sl^*"' 1759 passing two votes, one of £150,000, and the other of England. £300,000, for that purpose — the greater part of the money expended too in increasing the Irish military contingent to the British forces serving abroad ! In 1761 they voted a further sum for the latter purpose, to the amount of £200,000. And the importance of these efforts cannot fully be estimated, without the fact being stated, that whereas the economy of the Irish parliament had enabled them to clear off the debt of Ireland by the year 1754, the • liberality of their subsidies to England created a new debt, that by the year 1763 amounted to half a million, and eight years later was further increased to nearly £800,000 ! (see Commons Journals.) Nay, at the period last men- tioned, viz., the year 1771, the Irish parliament were so complaisant, as not only to vote an enormous loan, but to pass an act, giving the IGng the power of alienating the hereditary revenue of Ireland. Her efforts It is to be repeated again and again, that these efforts whenfi'eT*' arc uot to bc judged of by the mere abstract amount of the ne^^'^con- mouies they extracted from Ireland, or by a naked com- parison with the efforts of a country so abounding in wealth as England. The poverty of Ireland is ever to be borne in mind,* and the consequent disproportionate importance of such sums to her. * In the article No. 4 of the Appendix, on " Commercial Injustices," will be found several testimonies as to the poverty of Ireland before 1780, and its causes. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 11 In addition to the cruel depressions occasioned by her unjust restrictions in commerce and manufactures, and the blighting influence upon the industry of the country, of the penal laws, which shut out the majority of the people from profitable enterprize and employment, there was a further cause of exhaustion and misery in the unchecked, or rather accelerated progress of absenteeism. To the fatal drain caused by this old monster-evil of Ireland, no stop could be given, so long as the thraldom of the Irish parliament left that sense of provincial degradation, from which the aristocracy of a country are ever glad to fly. We now come to the period when Ireland was relieved act^d when from some of the oppression practised upon her, and ob- {^on^^f " taining the power of free self-legislation, may be considered ^'^"«^^''- more justly accountable, if her efforts to share the imperial burthens shall not appear to have been of due magnitude. The period of which we would speak is, that from 1782 to the accomplishment of the Union. That the newly emancipated parliament did not even let its first session of complete liberty pass over without making an effort, may be gathered from the speech with which the lord lieutenant of the day, the Duke of Portland, closed the eventful session of that year. He spoke as fol- lows : — " Gentlemen of the House of Commons — when I consl- Govern- der the very active and liberal part you have taken in con- "nowiedge- tributing to these glorious events (alluding to the military rious times events of the year), I must as distinctly express to you his i782 and majesty's sense of the last effusion of your generosity for efforts ami the defence of the empire, as I must return to you his most of Ireland. gracious thanks for the sujjplies which you so cheerfully voted at the beginning of the session" Thus, not only were the ordinary government supplies voted " cheerfully" but the throne acknowledged a " gene- \2 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. rosity" of further assistance to the imperial exchequer. In the next year, 1783, and in a new parliament, a motion for a reduction of the peace establishment of the army was rejected by a large majority, notwithstanding that it was supported by the recommendations of a committee that had sat some years before, and by the arguments from Flood and others, to the effect that the debt had been constantly increasing since the augmentation of the army in 1762, at the rate of £100,000 per annum — that a country like Ire- land, " whose circulating cash was but one million and a half, could not bear such a military establishment" — that " by frugality, we might be able to assist England in the hour of distress," &c. &c. In 1784, parliament was again thanked from the throne for the " cheerfulness" with which they had made provision for " the exigencies and honor of his Majesty's government." The viceroy's speech at the conclusion of the next session, 1785, thanked the Commons, " in his Majesty's name, for their liberal provision for th^ public service, honorable support of his government, and generous contribution of supplies." In tliis session they had voted new taxes to the amount of £140,000, in order to make the annual revenue of the country cover its expen- diture, which, for twenty-five or twenty-six years before, it had constantly failed to do ; and in the succeeding session continued the same taxes for the same purpose, and with perfect success. In this manner the Irish parliament con- tinued to earn and receive the royal thanks for their " libe- rality" and " generosity" during the remaining years of peace ; and the following short statement, in figures, of the respective increase of the British and Irish debts, from the commencement of the last French war to the Union, will shew, that, in fact, Ireland made greater efforts, propor- tionably speaking, than Great Britain, towards the support of the government and the defence of the empire. Her efforts in time of war. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 13 Funded and Unfunded Debts, unredeemed, of Great Bri- tain and Ireland respectively, in each of the years from 1791 to 1801. Years. Great Britain. Ireland. 1792 £241,811,668 £2,252,667 S-eTsVot' 1793 249,114,516 2,874,267 ^''''' 1794 263,632,894 4,002,451 1795 321,256,823 5,577,098 1796 364,581,572 6,537,467 1797 388,916,734 10,134,674 1798 416,799,075 15,806,723 1799... 424,519,343 23,100,785 1800 450,504,984 28,541,157 (Accounts in Appendix, from No. 1 to No. 12, Par. Paper, 35o/1819.J Now, if it be borne in mind, that until a few years be- fore the commencement of the period 1780 — 1800, the Irish debt had never amounted to one million, it will be at once seen how very great were the exertions of Ireland while legislatively independent. Taking her prosperity during that period to have been all that it is said (with good reason) to have been, her exer- tions must have been enormous, to have incurred such a debt notwithstanding such prosperity. Supposing, for a moment, as the unionists contend, that she was not by any means so prosperous, then her good will and anxiety to assist England, become still more apparent and conspicuous. As, therefore, the assertion of Ireland's undue exemp- '^/^g^l'"'^ tion from public burthens before the Union cannot be main- therefore -■^ untenaWe. tained, the last of the three pretexts is disposed of, on which the opponents of the legislative independence of Ireland attempt to ground the assertion of injury to even one other nation from that independence. Consequently, 14 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. Therefore the first of the two cascs laid down by us in the commence- Irelands J indepen-" me^t, as being generally held to justify greater restrictiolis no'^nlmy to ^^ natural right in one country than in another, cannot be England, gg^-^j ^^ ^^^g^ ^^j^j^ regard to Ireland. Next point: It rcmaius to be considered -whether the second of these Did Ireland shew unfit- cascs does or does not exist ; namely, whether her history, ness -tor self- ' J ' J ' mentr whilc in the enjoyment of legislative independence, can be said to aiford proofs that she was incapable of rightly ma- naging her own affairs. If Irish par- One class of arguments much used by the assertors of liamentper- ,.. , •ii t i> i /r .ii* secuting this incapacity, is deduced irom the profligate lobbins:, andprofli- . , ^ , ,. . • ^ , . , -, i -,, gate, was and thc cruel religious persecution, oi which, undoubtedly, England the Irish parliament was guilty. The answer is so plain tetter ? . . and palpable, that it needs but to be stated, without de- laying for comment or protracted consideration. Of reli- gious persecution the English parliament was, at least, equally guilty ; and if it were less given to profligacy and "jobbing" — (a matter by no means to be taken upon credit, but the examination of which is not needed to strengthen our answer) — this is to be remembered, that in Ireland the parliament was not that of the nation, but of a party — of a sect, and yet not of the entire even of that sect : its constituencies being most limited; and no less than 216 out of the 300 members of the commons, being, in fact, what is called " nomination-vaambQVs," dmiroflhe ^^ ^^^ been too much the fashion, we must here remark mrat wer'T incidentally, to decry the parliaments that existed in Ire- lishlnta-^' land before the Union. We have akeady said that their bad deeds are indisputable, and in no way do we seek to palliate them. But with all their faults, their conduct on many occasions was such as would have done credit to the legislature of any country — and this was when they acted of themselves ; while on the occasion when they acted badly, the crime was generally at the suggestion of England, and for English purposes. ences, AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 15 To please England, an Irish parliament consented to the annihilation of the Irish woollen trade in 1699. To serve England, successive Irish parliaments loaded their country with debt. It is, at the least, ungrateful in Englishmen, to make this very subserviency a subject of attack, and a reason for denouncing those who were guilty of it, for, as we have said, English purposes and English advantage. In article No. 3 of the Appendix, are recorded several J,eeg°'?fg good deeds of Irish parliaments, which assuredly ought to *^^"- be taken some note of, when its evil deeds have been so sedulously *« Learned and conned by rote, To cast irtto our teeth !" A very short summary is all that need be given here. ^^,f°eTof' They showed their care of the public purse, and desire of "saertfon. preserving, at least, some principles of the constitution in Ireland, by rejecting money-bills in 1690, 1709, and 1769, either because of not having originated with themselves, or of alterations made in the English privy council ; by de- feating, in 1729, an audacious attempt of the government to get the supplies for several years to come included in one vote ; and by resisting even the crown itself, in its at- tempt in 1751-53 to assert a right of controul over surplus monies then in the treasury. By the judicious manage- ment of the parhament, the debt of the nation was paid oif by the year 1754, and a further surplus having occurred, they set about the distribution and allocation of it with a haste prompted and stimulated by their dread of a re- newed attempt on the part of the crown to control them in those respects. We are not going to defend every item of application Excuses for ,1 J 1 1 111 ■ ' n defective then ana subsequently voted, but the great majority oi poucy in them were for purposes of internal improvement — opening stances. up the resources of Ireland, employing the people, &c. &c. ; m AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. others. and if they were often ill-considered, the fault is mainly with the government, whose rapacity was dreaded, and with the ideas of the age, which were by no means ad- vanced on the subject of political economy. If ever there was a country in which legislative inter- ference to assist industry was required, that country was Ireland — where there had been so much legislative inter- ference to cripple and impede it. England herself had hedged round her industrial interests with various protec- tive and fostering enactments ; several of them grievously interfering with Irish interests; and the depressed and miserable condition of the latter seemed to demand the utmost eflforts in a similar direction, that the limited power of the Irish legislature would allow them to make. unquestion III 1703, and again in 1719, the latter body protested condiwt'm against and sought to resist grievously unjust encroach- ments upon their authority and power, made by the legis- lature of Great Britain. In 1767, the Irish parliament passed a septennial bill, thereby voluntarily subjecting themselves to their constitutional responsibility to the people, at certain and definite periods, instead of as under the previous system, when the exercise of the electoral right depended upon the death of the monarch, if it were not his will during life to give the people that advantage. The English privy council, true to their unvarying policy of throwing every obstacle in the way of Irish rights, altered the provisions of the bill, substituting the term of eight for that of seven years ; in the unworthy hope, that as their assumed power of alteration had been so disputed and denied in Ireland, the measure in its new state might be dropped there. But rather than lose even a qualified benefit to their country, the Irish parliament took no notice of the affront to themselves, and passed the bill such as it was. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 17 The manner in which they compelled the concession of {gi^'^f 3„'"^a3 commercial liberty in 1780, and of legislative independence [|^^.if^'if^;j'[| in 1782, is abundantly detailed in articles before referred to in the appendix. If afterwards they basely surrendered that independence to England, it was under the pressure of a system of intimidation and corruption without parallel, and quite as great a disgrace to the British legislature that sanctioned and encouraged it, as to the Irish legisla- ture that sank under it. In matters of religion, if the Irish parliament acted ^f^|J^|!f g^. harshly and cruelly in the earlier and middle parts of the """jfe^PP^'^ last century, so did the British ; and towards the end of the ^™°J} *j|J^ century the former set eagerly about repairing the evil, fgl?^"'^"^ having in twenty years, up to 1794, passed no less than four important enactments for removing religious disabili- ties.* They would have proceeded to remove the whole, but for the confusion and distraction of the rebellion fomented by the government for the purpose of stopping these and other efforts of the Irish parliament to benefit their country. The Union was then carried with a promise to the Catholics that the progressive benevolence of the Irish parliament towards them should be surpassed by the immediate and entire concession in their favor by the imperial parliament. Twenty-nine long years elapsed ere the promise was redeemed, and then only under the com- pulsion of an impending civil war. Immediately after the achievement of legislative inde- other evi- . •' 1 T • 1 T 1 1 Ml • • dences of pendence m 1782, the Irish parliament passed a bill giving attention to Ireland the benefit, by express statute, of the English estsbytha •' ^ ^ ^. Irish par- Habeas Corpus Act, and another repealing the unconstitu- uament. * The dates were respectively 1778, 1782, 1792, and 1793. The con- cessions progressively given, were of the rights of property, freedom of education and of religious observances, admission to the professions and corporations, and, in short, of nearly everything save admission to par- liament. 18 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. tlonal perpetual munity bill. In 1785 tliey were deluded and cajoled into accepting Ord's celebrated "commercial resolutions ;" but by so small a majority that the go- vernment had to give the matter up. From that time until the Irish parliament ceased to exist in 1800, if they displayed corruption and baseness at times, particularly in the last few years of their existence, the records of their legislation are not, however, deficient in evidences of fre- quent attention to at least the manufacturing interests of their country. What might Jf this wTCtched parliament of a small section of the not have ■•• b^a ''I'arua- P^oplc did yct shcw itsclf SO frequently worthy of being represent"^ cntrustcd with thc busiucss of legislation, what would not people?^ ^ have been done by a body representing and really respon- sible to the entire people. The nation that made so ma- jestic a movement as the splendid simultaneous rising in arnis of the Volunteer army in Ireland, in 1779, to defend their native land from invasion, and preserve her to the British crown, could not fail to have delegated worthy re- presentatives of their patriotism and magnanimity, had the right of constitutional election been as free to them as they merited. And majestic as was this movement, it was even surpassed in splendour and true dignity by the conduct of the Irish people after their triumph in 1782 — the moral greatness evidenced by the moderation and temper with which they bore that triumph. The immortal Grattan thus speaks of it : (vol. 2, of his life by his son.) Mr. Grattan « Thcrc are two davs in the Irish history that I can never on the con- •' •' ''eo*te^ *^® forget — the one, that in which we gained our freedom. How great the triumph ! how moderate / how well it was borne — with tvhat dignity, and with what absence of vul- gar triumph ! The other was the day we lost our parlia- ment. It was a savage act, done hg a set of assassins who were brought into the House to sell the country ajid them- AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 19 selves : they did not belong to Ireland ; some were soldiers, all were slaves I Everything teas shame, and hurry, and base triumph /" It has been, perhaps, too great a concession on our parts to condescend to consider at all the insulting objection as to Ireland's incapacity for self-government. Yet we do not regret the time we have given to it, as thus an oppor- tunity has been afforded of summing up the good deeds of the certainly defective, and occasionally very corrupt — but still more calumniated, parliament of Ireland. Unable, thus, to find in the history of the past any not'^piwed justification for Ireland's deprivation of her legislature, the ffiX^' ^'"^ next question is, whether there be any compensating ad- vantages in the existmg state of things. This is matter for another chapter. CHAPTER II. If the existing system by which the laws that bind Ire- if union land are made by a parliament sitting in another country, land, where , Ti 'iiii 'in '*i'^ "-^ good and so little representing her, be the best, its benents lesuus? should assuredly be obvious ; or, at any rate, not difficult to be shown and proved. Has the commerce of Ireland flourished under this system ? Have her manufactures spread and increased ? Is capital abundant ? Are public burthens comparatively lighter than before the Union ? What is the condition of the people ? The two first of our queries will be found most suf- Reference to ., ^ ,^ article Mu 4 ficiently and irrefutably answered in the negative, in the in Appendix '' •' o ' yiz^_ .> Corn- Addenda to article No. 4, of the Appendix. There it is merciai in ^ ^ '- _ justices. shown, on the indisputable authority of figures, from docu- c 2 20 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. Commerce and manu- fachires declined. Want of capital. Drains of money from Ireland. ments authenticated by the opponents of Repeal them- selves, that commerce and manufactures have much and seriously declined. The only asserted prosperity is that of the linen-trade, and its condition in Belfast is the only case cited. Were the assertion perfectly established, there still would be little thereby proven for the general and greater prosperity of Ireland since the Union. The trade prospered before that measure. If it have in any degree bettered itself since, is nothing to be allowed for the number of years that have since elapsed? True, it is attempted to be maintained, that had not the Union occurred, the two par- liaments would have so differed in their views of commer- cial policy, as in all probability to lead to a system of mu- tual prohibitions, and that thus we should lose our best customers, the English, for our linens. The simple answer to this is, that England has taken our linens because they suited her in quality and price, better than she could pro- vide herself elsewhere. Any person who will read the historical facts detailed in the article on " Commercial In- justices," abeady referred to, in the Appendix, will be slow to believe that England would do toAvards us what no country ever yet did towards another, namely, make us a compliment of her custom to her own prejudice and injury. Even from the mouths of Unionists our miserable defi- ciency as to capital may be gathered. Their commonest outcry against constitutional agitation in Ireland is, that it prevents what Ireland so much wants, according to them, namely, British capital, from entering the country and giving employment to the people. According to the evidence giving before the Committee on Exchanges, in 1804, the absentee- drain from Ireland was then no more than two millions ; it is now generally admitted to be about four millions, and by many rated AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 21 higher. A couple of sessions ago it was computed by- Lord Cloncurry, (speaking in the House of Lords,) at six millions and a-half ; and his assertion has never been so much as questioned. This drain of capital, then, has much increased since the Union. At present, too, there is a revenue-drain amount- ing to many hundred thousand pounds, and in some years exceeding a million. This goes to England, and is there applied by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer accord- ing to his discretion. Before the Union the government establishments in Ireland required the greater part of our revenue, and the remainder was subject to the control and disposition of the Irish parliament. On these items and that of the money sent to purchase British manufactures in articles Ave used to manufacture at home, there cannot be a less amount of drain from Ireland at present than from nine to ten millions, one-half of which drain did not exist in 1799. To the Appendix we again refer for a full answer to the Great in- query respecting the comparative state of our public bur- puwic bur- thens before and since the Union. The article on the the union. m 'T-' •^^ ^ n i • 1 (Appendix, Taxation Injustice will be found to give that answer. We no. e.) may content ourselves here with stating, that whereas, by the report of the Finance Committee of 1815, the Irish taxation is declared to have increased from 1801, in the proportion of 23 to 10, while the British only as 2\\ to 10; the remission of taxation since then (viz., since 1814-15) has been, according to parliamentary paper 573 of 1843, £45,549,683 for Great Britain, and only £2,416,981 for Ireland ; or, in the proportion of nearly nineteen parts for the former, to one for the latter !* * We should have been in a condition to carry the account down in exact and precise figures to the present year, but that some returns, specially moved for by an Irish member, for this purpose, last June, in the House of state of the people. 22 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. Our prospective state is still worse — for whereas before the Union we were liable only for our own debt of twenty- three millions at the utmost, and any surplus which should remain after defraying the charge on that and other public charges, might be applied to the reducing of our burthens ; irei!!nd1br°^ the casc now is, that if our revenue were to increase a England's thousandfold, our having been made liable equally with England for the whole of her enormous debt of between seven and eight hundred millions, would prevent us from receiving the benefit of one shilling in the way of reduction of taxation ; unless, indeed, Great Britain should choose to relieve herself; when she would do so with our money, and, as we have seen before, in a proportion far exceeding that in which she Avould relieve us ! The next query which we have enunciated at the begin- ning of this chapter is : What is the condition of the people of Ireland ? To this let the Reports of Parliamentary Commissions supply the ansAvers. The Poor Law Enquiry Commission reported in 1834, that the destitute in Ireland amounted to tv/o millions and a quarter ! Thirty-four years of the operation of a statute asserted to have worked extraordinary benefits to Ireland, and at the end of them, nearly one-fourth of the people of Ireland paupers ! One human being in every four a beggar ! The Census Commission of 1841 bore witness that 36 per cent, of the town population, and 45 per cent, of the rural population, were in utter destitution ! Commons, have been, notwithstanding that the motion was allowed to pass, withheld : a specimen of the kind of attention which is given to Irish matters. However, in the article above alluded to, will be found a sufficiently ac- curate calculation, derived from other sources. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 23 The mean of these two fractions is over 40 per cent. — that is to say : that after forty-one years of the operation of a statute asserted to have worked extraordinary benefits to Ireland, more than tioo-JiJtIiQ of the people of Ireland are in miserable want ! Lord Devon's Commission (Landlord and Tenant En- quiry) reported in 1845, that " the aojricultural labourers of Ireland suffer the greatest privations and hardships ;" that " they depend upon precarious and casual employment for subsistence ;" that " they are badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for their labour ;" that " it would be imposssible to describe adequately the sufferings and privations which the cottiers and labourers, and their families, endure ;" that " their cabins are seldom a protec- tion against the weather ;" that " a bed or a blanket is a rare luxury ;" and that " nearly in all, their pig and their manure-heap constitute their only property ;" that " a large proportion of the entire population comes within the de- signation of agricultural labourers, and endure suffer- ings GREATER THAN THE PEOPLE OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN EUROPE HAVE TO SUSTAIN ! ! !" And this after forty-five years of the operation of a statute asserted to have worked extraordinary benefits to Ireland ! ! ! But it is said, that passing the economic view of the Assertori question, the people have been benefitted, as they have aKeneiai got Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, and mu- nicipal reform. The "question we have already started, namely, "what ^^,^',^^^^°' sures have been passed by an Irish Parliament? must first be settled, ere we attribute them to the influence of the Union. In our appendix, in the article No. 3, treating of Irish parliaments, no less than four steps may be the grounds for supposing that the Irish parliament '^^e^f p^'^g^, would not have enacted those measm'es, had it continued, ''•''^" ''"'*'^ 24 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. toAvards tlie entire enfranchisement of Catholics are shewn to have occurred within tAventy years up to and including 1793. But for the madness of the United Irishmen, this among other beneficial measures, would have gone on to consummation ; but the secret conspirings, and at length, the wild and mad outburst of rebellion, of which these parties were guilty, baffled the fortunes of Ireland, and gave a fearful advantage to her unscrupulous enemies, not only to stop the career of good legislation, but to trample upon the hopes as well as the rights of the Irish people, and give what almost seemed a security of permanency to their tyrannous dominion over that people, by the destruc- tion of the Irish parliament, and the subjection of Ireland, absolutely and unlimitedly, to the will and pleasure of a legislature of strangers, ^cts and in- ^^^' ^^^ moustrous inequalities and injustices that marked themea-" ^^^ "rcform bill," as compared with the measure of re- Hamenta^''^ fomi coucedcd to Great Britain in 1832, we refer to the pai'refom^' Ist articlc iu the Appendix. They are beginning now to been%fi/ bc SO generally, nay, universally admitted, that it would be a waste of time to repeat here the facts that will be found in the reference we have just given. Municipal reform has been indeed given us, but in what manner and degree ? England and Scotland had it for years before us, and our petitions on the subject were contemptuously rejected. At length, as a bone would be thrown to a dog, a scanty and insultingly limited measure was, as it were, flung to us. In England the simple fact of being rated to the poor and borough rate, were it only at one shilling, constitutes a man a burgess. In Ireland he must be rated at ten pounds a year, under a valuation known to be considerably lower than the real value ; the consequence of which is, that in Dublin, for instance, a man must occupy a tene- to us. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 25 ment worth nearly twenty pounds a year, to be entitled to be a burgess. In Liverpool or Bristol one tax is all that is needed to be paid to ensure the municipal franchise. In Ireland all local taxes must be paid, in no case less than nine in any ward in Dublin, and in some exceeding that amount. Again, the English municipalities retain the right of naming to the important office of the shrievalty in their respective localities. This is denied to the Irish, the appointment being vested in the government. These three measures — namely. Catholic emancipation. Jot owe^" parliamentary reform, and municipal reform, limited and surestoBri- insultingly restricted as the two latter are, and practically ^111, tuTto neutralized as the former has been, by the exclusion of®'''*^'°"" Catholics from all but a very few places of honor and emolument, were yet not free and voluntary grants from the Imperial Parliament, but confessedly and indisputably wrung from that parliament by agitation. If^ then, Ireland, loith so small an influence over legislation as her one hundred members, sitting in another country ivith 553 strangers, ivas get able to compel some measures of good, hoivever defective, what xoould she not have been able to accomplish and obtain from a parliament sitting at home, all composed of Irishmen, and girt round by Irish influences ? The only other measure of importance* — and it certainly ^°°*' ^'^^^'■ is one of awful importance — enacted for Ireland since the Union, is that of Poor Laws. In the present state of that measure — the bankruptcy of boards of guardians — the im- possibility of collecting the rate without bloodshed — the deep indignation and execration of the people at the conduct of the poor law officials — and the redundancy of beggars * Mention is omitted designedly in the text, of the Bequests and Col- leges Acts. As there are yet some parties in Ireland not ready to join the Irish people in an entire denunciation of these acts, it is thought better not to touch upon them, the more especially as at the best they could not operate for immediate physical improvement. 26 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. even where the workhouses are overflowing, not even the most hardy unionist will make much boast on this score. irifh°pa?iia- Opiuions differ in Ireland as to the advisability of any long ago poor laAvs ; and one of the first and most important dis- ed^them!^ cussious of an Irish parliament would inevitably be upon that question. We are not now called upon to discuss it, but there is no assertion of ours that we have stronger grounds for making, or on which we so little dread contra- diction, than that this discussion would have been twenty or thirty years ago entered upon in parliament at home, the public mind in Ireland having, for at least that period, been occupied with the subject, while no attention was given to it in the British parliament until within the last ten years. Thecimrch Had wc had a domestic legislature during at least the Temporali- . , , . , . . . ., i i i i ties giiev- period last-mentioned, it is impossible but that the mon- ance. strous " church grievance" should have been abated in Ireland. The commissioners of public instruction reported in the year 1834, that there were but 800,000 episcopalian Protestants in Ireland. It is well known that this account was at any rate not zwirfer-stated, and that it included every man, woman, and child that could by any possibility be put in the episcopalian ranks. Yet these 800,000 (diminished now in number, as is generally believed) have a church establishment magnificently provided for, at the expense of six millions and upwards of Catholics ! So monstrous an injustice could not have endured a year had the Irish people had a reformed parliament at home. Article No. 7, in the Appendix, deals with some of the details of this monstrous grievance. Confessions It is iiot many months since the press of England, with- ush pres"^ out distinction of party, under the pressure of threatening non-efficacy circumstanccs from abroad, teemed with declarations that Mgood. something must be done for Ireland, to make the people AN ARGUMENT FOIl IRELAND. 27 attached to the Union ! This confession, of itself, es- tablishes a case against the measure in question. Unfor- tunately for its defenders, the people of Ireland will trust no longer to words and promises. In 1834, the King, Lords, and Commons, united in a solemn declaration to Ireland, that, while they never would consent to Repeal, they would redress her grievances, and do for her all that she required, short of giving her back the power of making her own laws. The leader of the Eepeal agitation felt, that ^^°fj'^^| after so solemn a declaration from the higher powers in the ^p^^^'^'"^ state, a refusal to give them the opportunity of redeeming their promises, would hereafter enable them to charge on the Irish people themselves, the disappointment of the hopes and the non-alleviation of the miseries of these latter. He abated the agitation — the people acquiesced in the ex- periment — six long years were given for the redemption of these solemn engagements, and six long years definitively proved that they were made in fraud and deceit, and that the people of Ireland had no hope save in then* own ex- ertions. There are then neither facts on which to rest a belief foc|"then that our deprivation of the power of managing our own misJs™an affairs has been palliated by any benefits resulting from the e^-lifof the Union ; nor are there promises on Avhich trust or hope can *"°°" be placed for the future. The only consideration then which could remain to delay us from demanding our legis- lative independence, would be, if there were truth In the assertions of our opponents, that whatever evils we may suffer from the Union, worse would result from its repeal. We shall consider tliis in the next chapter. 28 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. >m CHAPTER III. tionfimde" ^^ Considering the objections commonly urged to the ^sirtive'*^ restoration of her parliament to Ireland, we shall take those dkic^!'^ of least plausibility first ; accordingly, we take the assertion, that the Repeal would lead to Catholic ascendency. Catholic There is a guarantee given against this by all the de- clarations and acts of the Catholics of Ireland. Petitions, addresses, declarations, resolutions, speeches, every con- ceivable vehicle of human thought and human purpose, that have been adopted by even a section of that body, have uniformly, where at all referring to religious matters, declared our desire and demand for that entire liberty of conscience, which consists not merely in the permission to each man to worship Ms God in the face of day in the manner that he thinks best, or in opening the way to pub- lic station and employment, but in the entire abolition of all manner of compulsory payments by the members of one form of Christianity to the pastors, teachers, and support of any other. The Catholic prelates and clergy of the second order in Ireland, have availed themselves of every opportunity to record their coincidence in these sentiments with the laity of their communion, and have continually added a declaration that they would not consent to be con- nected with the state. History is much too replete with instances of the evils that such connexion occasioned to the Catholic church, to make us desire to see the cause of those evils brought into activity again. We, Catholics, are BOUND THEN BY OUR CONVICTIONS, WE ARE BOUND BY OUR MOST SOLEMN AND THOUSAND-FOLD REPEATED DE- CLARATIONS, NEVER TO SEEK FOR RELIGIOUS ASCENDANCY, AND NEVER TO ACCEPT IT WERE IT EVEN OFFERED ; AND WE SHOULD BE UTTERLY FAITHLESS, AND FOR EVER DIS- AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 29 GRACED, IF WE EVER SHRUNK FROM THE STRICTEST INTER- PRETATION OF THOSE ENGAGEMENTS. The Protestants of Ireland would have the additional guarantee of a nearly altogether Protestant house of lords, and of the influence of the immense proportion of territorial influence which is in the hands of the members of that creed. They would further have the guarantee of what takes place in Catholic countries abroad. In most of them indeed, the Catholic religion is the religion of the state: but has been made so by no new enactment, being a matter of old institution. But in none of them is there any species of political exclusion whatsoever on account of difference of faith ; and if the Protestant inhabitants have to pay tow- ards Catholic purposes, inasmuch as a portion of the produce of the general taxes in those countries is devoted to such purposes by the government, they have at least the comfort of knowing that their Catholic neighbour, enjoying no exemption from taxation, pays equally indirectly with them, but fully as much towards Protestant purposes, the government making ample allocation for these last, as well as for the former. Regenerated Ireland would go a step beyond this ; and having in her adversity made experience of the voluntary system, and found it admirable in ensuring zealous clergymen and attached flocks, would retain it in her prosperity, and set a brilliant example for the world's imitation. This dread of Catholic ascendancy is an honest but most unreasoning and ungenerous fear with some, while with others it is a pretext and a bugbear. The next objection we shall notice, contains something Yorkshire like what logicians call an argumentum ad ahsurdum. cashire " Yorkshire," it is said, " and Lancashire have no parlia- ireiami. ments ; Avhat greater right has Ireland to a separate legis- 30 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. lature than either of them ?" " She is," add the broachers of this argument, " an integral portion of the British em- pire, just as they are." This can be dismissed in very few- words. Both of the counties named are physically, as well as politically, portions of England, having the same population, manners, religion, laws, and history. Ireland is, physically, most distinct from England, a sea rolling between them, a population preserving a total distinctness of race and religion, considerably distinct in manners, and having a history which is nothing but a record of fortunes most distinct and different from those of the sister country. Seven centuries of connexion have faUed to produce an identification of the people of the two countries, and forty- five years of united legislation have still left glaring discre- pancies in their respective amounts of rights and privileges. The people of Yorkshire are not compelled to pay to a church to which they do not belong ; the people of Ireland are. Yorkshire is represented in the united parliament, and so is Lancashire, in a manner far more proportioned to its population, size, &c. than Ireland is Avith regard to hers. The article No. 1 in the Appendix, before referred to, will shew the reader this disproportion. If the differ- ences we have glanced at were removed — if Ireland were upon an equality with Yorkshire or Lancashire, as to franchises, representation, freedom from taxation to the church of the minority, &c. &c., then the argument sought to be dei'ived from their case might be taken into consider- ation, although still one easily to be refuted. The fact is, that it would be best treated by pushing the principle in- volved in it to its legitimate results, and insisting that if centralization is to prevail with regard to the management of the legislative afiairs of Ireland, it ought also to prevail with regard to the municipal affairs of Dublin, and by a parity of reasoning, to those of Liverpool, Bristol, &c.. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 31 which, if these theories be right, would all he better managed by one body sitting in London, than as at present by the local municipalities in each ! The next objection is, that an Irish parliament would be woiud an '' ^ Irish parlia- too democratic ; yet the repealers look for nothing beyond m^^t be^w what the reformers of England desire. Like them, they do certainly desire a full and free representation of the people — vote by ballot, to protect the poor or dependent voter, and short parliaments to make representatives more accountable ; but they are devoted to the present constitu- tional monarchy, and are far less hostile to a house of peers as a state institution, than are the people and middle classes of England. No man who has watched and com- pared the speeches, &c. of the liberals of Great Britain and of L-eland respectively, can fail to have been struck with the far greater tendency of the former towards jacobinism, than of the latter. A most certain means of preventing the spread of ex- treme democracy in Ireland would be, by the wealthier and the titled classes putting themselves at the head of the popular movement. This once done, and done heartily^ they would soon find their legitimate influence far more than sufficient to check the tendencies so dreaded, and to keep the popular mind within the limits that the most timid could desire. The next matter put forward to discountenance the ^ longer ^ trial to tlie proposition of repeal is, the vague and general assurance, umon. that although the Union may not yet have done much good to Ireland, it assuredly will, if allowed a longer trial ; and the case of Scotland is cited as one in point. " For a considerable time she improved indeed slowly," is confessed, but it is triumphantly added, that at length she did improve, and ere the end of the century " transcend- antly flourished in consequence of her union with Great 32 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. Britain." It will not require much delay to dispose of tliis argument. The principal supporter of the assertion of Scotland's greater improvement, was the right honorable Hemy Dundas — himself a Scotchman — and the proofs he brought forward (in his speech of February 7, 1799,) were these : « That Scotland had /or sale" as he phrased it, « 1,000,000 yards of linen, her staple manufacture in 1706 ; and in 1796, 23,000,000." But Ireland, according to John Foster, and the hand- loom report (of 1838), exported: — Years. Yards. Value. 1706 1783 1796 530,838 16,039,705 46,705,319 £32,750 1,069,313 3,113,687 Mr. Dundas boasted of the increase of the Glasgow population in 92 years, — from 14,800 to 77,000 — but did not extend his boast to the general population of Scotland : on which the increase as compared with that in Ireland was, (according to Mr. Pitt's statement in 1799,) as follows : — POPULATION. YEARS. SCOTLAND. IRELAND. 1700 1799 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 4,500,000 • Again Lord Sheffield, in his " Observations on the Trade, &c. of Ire- land," 1785, states, at page 284, that the Irish exports to England alone, on a five years' average, ending 1783, were in value £2,301,444, while Chal- mers, in his " Comparative Estimate of Scotland and England," p. 229, printed at London, 1794, gives four years' average of Scotland to all the world, at only £802,345. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. * .'},'j But the fact is, that even could Scotland be shown to have increased from her Union up to 1800, in a greater proportion than Ireland during the same time, the compa- rison would not be fair; as the previous condition of Scotland had been so unnaturally depressed, and unjustly, cruelly, and violently interfered with by England. The Parliament of Scotland had not courage enouofh to attempt resistance against the legislative interferences of England with Scotch enterprize and commerce ; nor indeed was that Parliament much better than a mere re^isterinff council of the will of the crown. Peers and commoners sat together in the same house ; and the royal prerogative of adding indefinitely to the former class, ensured the government a majority. Moreover, no proposition could be discussed or at all introduced, without the previous sanc- tion of the " lords of articles," (as they were called,) — a small body who were the absolute nominees and dependents of the government. Now, was this the case with Ireland before her union ? Was her condition " unnaturally depressed ? " Was she " unjustly, cruelly, and violently interfered with ? " And was her parliament prevented from applying remedies to her evils, by its restricted legislative powers, and entire subjection to the will and power of the English govern- ment? To these three questions the following are the answers : Up to 1780 — 82, (the period within which freedom of foreign and colonial trade, and legislative independence, were yielded to Ireland,) Ireland's condition was indeed unnaturally depressed and interfered with — and her par- liament was in a very great measure — but by no means so entirely as was the Scotch parliament — restricted, limited, and held in subjection by the English government. Article No. 4 in the appendix, can be referred to for 34 AN AHGUMKNT FOR IRELAND. details of these injustices in commercial matters ; and article No. 3, for a specification of the parliamentary- interferences. After the period of 1780-2, although England still kept her own market practically closed against us, and had taken advantage of the first warmth of our gratified feelings to engage us to restrict to her own colonies our West India trade, yet we had considerable liberty of commercial in- terchange and tariff arrangements with foreign countries, and entire liberty as to the internal encouragements and premiums which, in accordance with the ideas of the age, we might and did consider advisable. Our parliamentary liberty was still subject to this re- striction, that the shape in which any measure ioas to pass, should be given it in the English Privy Council, and thus the royal assent made known beforehand. We could hoAv- ever entirely reject a measure, although not permitted sub- stantially to frame or alter it. This saved us from enforced legislation; and the sturdy indej)endence of 1780-82 had left such an impression on the minds of our English go- vernors, that until the very close of the century, Avhen wholesale bribery and intimidation had sapped the founda- tions of our parliament, and the latter was tottering to its speedy fall, no important injustice was attempted by means of this reserved restriction. Under the influence of these enlargments of her liber- ties, the prosperity of Ireland made an extraordinary spring in the interval between 1780 and 1800. The Earl of Clare, a bitter enemy of her legislative independence, and one of the chief of the domestic traitors who surrendered to England that independence, had to confess, even when most energetically advocating and urging on the surrender, that "no nation on the face of the habitable globe had advanced in cultivation, in agriculture, in manufac- AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 35 tures, -with such rapidity, within the same period, (viz., from 17S0 to 1800,) as had Ireland." And abundant corroborative testimony might be here adduced, but that of so strong an advocate of the Union ought to be the most weighty with its present sup- porters. The cases then of Scotland and Ireland were Avidely different with regard to their respective conditions at the time of their respective legislative unions with England. And we have already seen, with reference to the important trade in "linen," one of importance to both the former countries, and shall, in dealing with the subject of oiur commercial history, (article No. 4, Appendix,) see with reference to other branches of industry, that Ireland's pro- gress under her own parliament, notwithstanding the cruel " restrictions" of Avhich she had so long to complain, Avas, comparatively as well as absolutely, greater than that of Scotland since 1707, under all the advantages which the lat- ter is said to have reaped from her legislative Union in that year. And finally we must remark, that Ireland's present condition is too Avretched to alloAV much probability of her being either able or loilling to undergo a longer experiment of a Union hitherto found so disastrous. Having disposed of the least plausible objections to Repeal, Ave noAv address ourselves to the main and only one that can really be called an argument, viz., that separate and co-ordinate legislatures in the same empire cannot Avork together. Were there soundness in this, Ireland mig-ht have to ^'le only ' *-> plausible consider Avhether the connexion between her and Great oi^Jections to Repeal. Britain were Avorth the deprivation of her OAvn parhament. But soundness there is none in the argument Ave are dealing Avith, as will easily appear upon a little considera- tion. D 2 36 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. The assertions on the subject are four in chief : Questions of 1st. — That betwccn two independent parliaments in the same empire, there would be differences on the question of succession to the throne, and of a regency. War. 2nd. — That the two parliaments might differ as to the necessity and support of a war. Commerce. 3^,^^ — That in Commercial matters their Interests might jar, and conflicts ensue. iinanee. ^^i^^ — That as to financial arrangements, there Avould be most serious differences of opinion and practice. First, re- To tlic first of thcsc objections we ansAver, that there exists at this moment unrepealed, an act oi an Irish par- liament, known in the Irish Statute Book as the 33rd Henry VIII. chap. 1, which constitutes the King of Eng- land, his heirs and successors, kings of Ireland, with all power, authority, and dignity appertaining to the kingly office in Ireland. By that act we are bound, and would be bound, until specially repealed. But we are ready to agree, as we have said in another place, that one of the articles of international treaty at the time of" abrogating the legislative union should be, that the king, or regent de facto in England, should be king or regent de jure in Ireland. Thus should we close up one som'ce of civil war and confusion, and meantime lose no real advantage, for, after all, those who hold the purse-strings are the real governors of a country, whoever may be the person enjoying the name, style, and dignity. Second, war Mr. Speaker Foster shall help us to answer the second aiu peac . g^jjgg^^^Qjj^ jjj }jjg speech in the Irish House of Commons, 11th April, 1799, (in committee on the Union Bill,) he said : — " As to peace and war, it is to be recollected that the sole and absolute power of making either rests with the ^7 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. *" executive. It is the King's prerogative But,/rom the balance of poioer to which the British constitution owes its great excellence, the executive, though vested with power to act by declaring Avar, is forced to apply to par- liament for means to carry it on, and, therefore, must con- sult their opinion Suppose the British parliament to approve a war, and that of Ireland to disapprove, the only difficulty Avhich this difference of sentiment could create would be, that the one who disapproved might withhold its supplies until it could be induced to acquiesce. It could not, by the refusal, stand clear of the miseries, and hazards, and losses of war, because the king's declaration involves it equally with Britain." To this we need only add, that should such hesitation occur on the part of Ireland, it would, in effect, be beneficial to the empire, as the knowledge of its likelihood would make a minister doubly cautious how he rashly involved the empire in the expense and miseries of a state of war. But let us not pass from this point without drawing the latf war * immediate attention of Irishmen to this question, as it Canada!^ ' would be affected in the recent most expensive wars of (Utei-ranear. Great Britain. We allude to those of Canada, China, tan. the Mediterranean, and the N. W. frontier of India. The assembly of Lower Canada sought, by the constitutional means of limiting the supplies, to gain some influence over the conduct of the executive, in giving offices to a party in the province opposed to the opinions of the bulk of the population and of the legislature itself. Upon this the British government at home invoked the interference of the imperial parliament. The latter did interfere, and strongly. Its interference in fact amounted to a direct violation of the Canadian constitution. Still however, enough of their parliamentary liberties were left to the Canadians inviolate, to render an appeal to arms totally 38 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. inexcusable. But in blaming them for thus plunging into all the crime and misery of insurrection, we are not to save the government harmless. If the original evil had not been committed, viz., the truckling to an old ascendancy party, the long train of evils which followed would not have occurred; and the conduct of the late Sir Charles Bagot, when governor-general, since the insurrection, shews how useless all the expense and bloodshed has been, since the original concessions which the house of assembly re- quired, viz., the giving a share in administrative offices to others besides the faction noticed, have been by him made and approved of at home, and the same policy has been folio Aved by his successors. The bloody struggle to obtain a five years' delay to these concessions has cost, it is said, a million and a half to the empire, in addition to the loss of life and the crimes that were committed during the brief contest. What concern had Ireland in the matter ? Of what advantage to her is Canada ? Of what benefit to her was the tem- porary triumph over the public opinion of Canada ? Yet Ireland has had to pay largely out of her taxes towards these most fruitless expenses. Had she had her OAvn parlia- ment, England Avould have been left to pay the cost of her obstinacy alone. Can any Irishman say that this would not have been most right ? The war Tlic China war originated from the practice of opium- smuggling — nearly exclusively carried on by British mer- chants. Ireland had no concern in the iniquitous traffic. The Chinese government themselves were deeply guilty by the nearly universal connivance of its ministers and agents, until their increasing extortion of enormous fees forced a rupture. That government is therefore not to be excused ; but neither is the British — the latter having sanc- tioned the proceedings of the smugglers for the sake of the ■with China. AN ARGUMENT FOR lUELAND. 39 Indian revenue. The war that has resulted, has cost the empire al)out tAvo millions of money, Irish as Avell as Bri- tish, and this Avhile Ireland had neither share nor profit in the illegal traffic of which we have spoken. Her own par- liament would have protected her pocket in this instance also. The interference by England in the disputes between two barbarians in the Mediterranean — an interference that has resulted only in the weakening and damaging the strength of the abler barbarian of the two — namely Ma- homet Ali — (who, if encouraged and supported, might have been of considerable use in helping to counteract and baffle the encroachments of Russia) — without adding any real strength to the feebler sultan, or in any way increasing the stability of his tottering throne, occasioned much waste of the resources of the empire. Here again her parliament would have saved Ireland harmless. Her disgust at thus being made, against her will, acces- sary to what Talleyrand would have designated as the " worse than crime — the blunder" of the Mediterranean intermeddlings, is very considerably enhanced by the cruel sufierings to which the Christian population of Syria have been subjected in Syria, since Mahomet Ali Avas forced by England to abandon them to their Turkish persecutors. The plunderings, treacheries, disasters, and massacres in Affghanistan, might have never occurred, had the reckless hand of the British minister been stayed by the involuntary prudence to which he would have been compelled by the refusal of the Irish parliament to involve Ireland in an un- just war. In all these cases, if England had chosen to go on single- handed, no danger to the empire from invasion of the neutral portion of it, could of course have arisen, as neither Canadians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Affghans, would be 40 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. likely to attempt a descent on the Irish coast. And in the case of war with a power able to make such an attempt, Ireland's previous neutrality would not of course save her from the necessity of defending her own shores, and the very attack would make her, however unwillingly, a party to the full in the contest. The remarks we have made on the foregoing instances will, of course, apply to the war at this moment progressing in the territories of the Sikhs, adjoining Affghanistan. Some of the pretences and defences set up against the impugners of this war, are not without speciousness ; but Avhen Ave find a continual encroachment and acquisition attempted to be accounted for only by " the necessity of the case," grave doubts Avill arise in the mind, even when the plausibility is greatest. Meantime so much is certain — viz : that serious burdens are thus entailed upon the imperial treasury, to Avhicli Ireland contributes of course. Were justice observed, Great Britain, the country that draws the profit of these acquisitions, should bear the cost, and Ireland be exempted — and this justice her own parliament would ensure to the latter. AUcped Come we now to the third prediction of the mutual in- t(.mmerciai Compatibility of separate and co-ordinate legislatures in the tliffei'ences. w-, . . , . . , . . , -, British empire, viz. — that in commercial matters there would be jarring and differences. If the freely chosen representatives of the Irish people should differ in opinion with the English parliament in these respects, nothing could be more right than that the opinions and Avill of the former should prevail in Ireland. If England apprehended any evil from the commercial policy adopted by the Irish legislature, she still could guard her own ports against Ireland as rcell as against foreign countries. We now suffer cruelly, whensoever AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 41 an occasion arises when England, in her commercial negotiations with foreign poAvers, conceives she can bene- fit her own interests at the expense of ours. Thus our linen trade was recklessly imperilled in negotiations with France, and our provision trade offered as a sacrifice in an attempted treaty with Portugal ; and we are not left at the mercy of foreign powers alone, but every little colony is allowed to deal with us as it likes. Early in the year 1843, our provision merchants had to make loud and utterly fruitless complaints against the conduct of the legislature of Jamaica, which suddenly raised the duties on our imports into that island, to a scale varying from 20 to 70 per cent, of increase upon their former amount. Thus, one of our only remaining manufactures, if it can be so called, was grievously Injured, while the compulsion was left upon us of purchasing the higher-priced coffees and sugars of the British West Indian islands, instead of being alloAved to supply ourselves with those articles cheaper from foreign colonies. If it was right and fiiir that the British West Indies should not restrict themselves to Ireland for provisions, when they could be more conveniently supplied elsewhere, surely it would be right and fair that Ireland should have the power of supplying herself more conveniently elsewhere than from them, with the important article of coffee and the necessary article of sugar. The spread of the principles of free trade is likely ere long to diminish much the chances of differences in com- mercial matters between countries politically Independent of each other. How much more likely is it then, that the chance of differences between two countries politically con- nected, as. In some shape or other, is likely to be the case with England and Ireland, should be diminished ? And where a case of difFcrencc might possibly arise, England 42 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND, V would have this advantage on her side, that Ireland could not afford, for any ordinary matter, or even for many ex- traordinary points, to risk being excluded from the markets of her rich and poAverful neighbour ; and so would be inclined rather to concede than to resist. Jealousy of With many, the pretext we are considerino; is but a Irish possi- . . , . We prospe- cloak for their jealous apprehension of Ireland's rivalry in commerce and manufactures. If this intolerant class are to be noticed at all, it should suffice to say, that the world is wide enough for us all ; and that it is nothing other than a blasphemy against Divine Providence, to suppose that the fair and legitimate prosperity of one country can ever be an injury to that of another. But, in truth, to dread rivalry from Ireland in these particulars, is — irre- spective of the considerations we have just mentioned — absurd, if only on account of the remote possibility of such an event. Were all the capital of Ireland now drained from her to be at once restored, and doubled, trebled in amount, it still would be impossible that she could for seve- ral years rival England in manufactures generally. One or two, or even three particular branches might succeed, and in some measure compete with English products of the same description, but she should still supply herself for the major part from England ; and Avhat competition she might be able to establish would, in fact, be a benefit to the Eng- lish consumer, as it would necessarily lower prices to him. Ireland Humanity requires that new sources of industry and nufactures. employment should be opened up in Ireland. Employ- ment on the land has altogether failed, as it must ever fail, as a means of supporting the entire population of a country. The commonest complaint we hear is, that the land is overstocked, that the wretched peasantry of Ireland, having no means of subsistence other than by the occupa- tion of land, bid, as it were for life and death, against each AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 43 other, at the land-auctions, (as they are aptly termed,) which take place on the ejectment of a tenant, or dropping of a lease ; and that thus an almost irresistible temptation is put in the way of the Irish landlord or agent to demand exorbitant rents. The best, because most natural remedy for this state of things, and consequently the best preventa- tive of the horrid land-murders which result from it, would be the restoration of manufactures and commerce to Ire- land ; whereby the surplus population would have opened to them other and abundant sources of employment and subsistence. On the matter of the fourth prediction, viz., that of Alleged pos- ^ '- slWe finan- possible " financial" disaojreements, we need not lons^ ^^'ai ciisa- •^ <=> ' o greemciits. delay. Article No. 6, in the Appendix, will have made the reader acquainted with the injustices Ave have suffered, and the grievances we have to complain of, under the financial arrangements at the time of the Union and in 1816. It will there be seen what a heavy sum we would be entitled, in strict right, to demand, as no more than a small compensation for the unjust drains of forty-five years. But that article also contains the outlines of a plan by which relief could be given to Ireland, and yet no heavy additional payment demanded from Great Britain, either as compensation to her injured sister, or provision for the burthens which ought justly to be transferred from the shoulders of the latter. We need not enter here into the details of the scheme, which are sufficiently explained in the Appendix,* to which we direct attention — but may content ourselves with stating that the simple principle of the arrangement there proposed is, that as Ireland is made to contribute so heavily to the imperial expenditure, a * The plan in question is not put forward as adopted by the Repeal party, or even as in favour with any considerable ])ortion of them, but as a sugges- tion to induce discussion and consideration of future financial arrangements. 44 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. tlie&e points. corresponding proportion of that expenditure should be allotted to her. This could be done by sharing the govern- ment establishments more equally between the two coun- tries, stationing a portion of the imperial navy in our admirable harbours, and allotting to us the special support of that portion — be it as large as England might choose — dealing similarly wath the army, with the ordnance, the civil establishments of government, &c. &c. Thus, Avithout the remission of one tax to Ireland, without the additional exclusive imposition of one upon Great Britain, the former Avould be materially benefitted ; and as her prosperity in- creased, she would speedily be able to bear a far higher proportion of the imperial expenditure, than can now be wrung from her poverty and destitution. Foster'im'^^ Wc might liavc spared the reader much of this dis- cussion by confining ourselves to the simple recording of Mr. Speaker Foster's arguments on the points involved in it. We have already quoted a portion of those argu- ments, and now subjoin further quotations from the same speech : — " Theory, and theory alone, says, that the separate par- liaments may disagree. But there is no one argument you can apply as shewing a consequent necessity of con- solidating them, that will not apply much stronger for the consolidation of the two houses in each ; and the same arguments will all further apply, with equal strength, to consolidate the two houses with the king, for fear of the national concerns being impeded by disagreement. Thus your arguments will end in the absurdity, that you must consolidate the three estates of each kingdom into one, for fear of a difference of opinion between them, arising from the exercise of their free judgments ; that you must abandon the glorious constitution of a mixed government wliich you now enjoy, and adopt that of a single monarch, AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 45 or single power, wherever it may rest, either in a monarch, an oligarchy, or a republic. But practice, which is a more steady guide than theory, tells you the reverse. In points of peace and war, the Irish parliament has never, even during centuries, differed in opinion with the British; though its power to do so has ever been as unlimited, and equally free, before as since the constitution of 1782. No! interest is a sure guide to nations ; and it never was, nor ever can be, the interest of the smaller number to differ from the larger — of the weaker to differ from the more powerful on such a matter; and it is no rash prediction to say, that good sense, and even necessity, must soon recon- cile the differing body, if unfortunately such an instance should occur. " But if we look into the principles of the British con- stitution, we shall find there abundant reason not only to reject arguments of such a theory as would consolidate the legislatures, but even not to adopt such measure were it practicable. That constitution was not the Avork of one man, or of one age : it has gradually softened down in the course of centuries into that perfection we now have — more by the collision of circumstances than by the efforts of human wisdom or foresight. That collision has imper- ceptibly formed a balance in its constituent parts, Avhich, by the power of mutual checks, keeps each within its bounds, and preserves the whole in its true perfection. " That balancing check is the true principle to Avhich it owes its preservation — destroy it, and the whole is gone ! Is it wrong, then, to look for similar good effects from the same balancing principle in the connexion between the legislatures of the two islands, as in the connexion between the component parts of each legislature?" Not being aware of other objections of any plausibility ^"™™^P to the re-constitution of Ireland's independent parliament — illusions. 46 AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. for the smaller fry of insulting prophecies of the corrupt- ness of the Irish parliament,* &c. &c., we shall not con- descend to notice ; there remains but for us to sum up the matter of these three chapters, and then leave our readers to the consideration of the facts adduced in the Appendix. The summary need but to be brief. Ireland plainly did not injure any other country by her legislative independence ; neither was she incapable of managing her own affairs ; therefore her case justified nei- ther of the qualifications stated in the beginning of our first chapter, as being held to limit the application to a form of government in a country, of the test derived from the amount of individual liberty retained in the latter. There- fore Ireland being much more limited in that j)articular than is England, has been so limited unjustly. We then considered were there any palliatives for this injustice — and we found her revenue not increased since the Union, her commerce declined, her manufactures gone, her people starving ! herself in a position of great infe- riority in all points of political importance, as compared with England ; therefore we found no palliatives for the deprivation of her rights and liberties. We thirdly examined whether their restoration would be attended with worse evils than a continuance of their de- privation. We found that danger could not result to freedom of conscience; that the alleged danger of wild democracy was a bugbear ; that the example of Scotland's condition since her Union actually told for our argument, as her improvement had been far less than ours under our enfranchised parliament ; and her state previous to her Union had been very dissimilar from ours before 1800. We finally examined into all the branches of the attempted * The restored Irish parliament would, of course, be reformed in its con- stitution. The rotten borough system is condemned in both countries. AN ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. 47 argument of incompatibility of separate parliaments ; and Ave found that divisions of opinion were likely only as to unnecessary wars — most unlikely in commercial matters — and easily obviable as to financial matters ; and, above all, as to the important question of the succession to the throne. Fi'om these premises we fairly and logically conclude, that no such evils are to be apprehended from the restora- tion of our parliament as Avarrant our being denied it for even one additional month ; and therefore Ave claim and demand the restoration of that parliament. The history of Great Britain is not Avithout instances of Opp°^tj^n"y magnanimity and generosity, even at expense and loss S'^g^'^gt" to herself. But here is a case in Avhich the exhibition of ^^^,J^*^' those qualities, so far from causing a loss, must result in immense and continually increasing adA^antage. At present she holds us but by force, and our Avretched poverty makes us unable to contribute to the exigencies of the empire, save to a miseraljle amount, although om' proportion of im- posts is but little less than hers. Let her concede our rightful demands, and she, at once, and for ever, secures our Avarm and energetic affections ; and, as our Avealth and prosperity increase, so Avill our money aid most abundantly and heartily be augmented. Concession noAV Avould be gratefully received, and impose a debt which our gratitude Avould struggle hard to repay. Concession in any of the storms and dangers that noAv darken the political horizon, and Avhich may, Avithin a few months, burst upon England, will lose half its merits from our bitter experience of its denial when she Avas strong, and our knoAvledge that Ave shall then only owe it to her fears and her distress. WhatcA'er England may do, let Ireland but continue the whatever noble, peaceful struggle in Avhich she is engaged, and as- leunshiifen suredly success must croAvn her efforts. Let Irishmen be ireimcl'" 48 AN AUGUMENT FOR IRELAND. but true to the high destinies before them — let them per- severe resolutely but patiently — ardently but peacefully — and be assured, that as their cause is good and holy, so if their efforts to advance it be kept within the bounds of order and of religion, the blessing of heaven will descend upon it and upon them ; and the past sufferings and miseries of Ireland will be lost to the view on the page of history, in the dazzling and transcendant brightness of her future fortunes. APPENDIX No. I. "INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE." On this subject we copy the greater part of a Report drawn up by Daniel O'Connell, M.P., m April, 1840,* and shall then proceed with some additional matter. Report of the Committee of the National Association of Ireland^ on the numher of Representatives to which Ireland is entitled. The Committee to whom It was referred to consider the injustice done to Ireland by reason of the inadequate number of her representatives, have agreed to the following Report. They have divided the subject referred to, into two distinct branches : 1st — That which relates to the gross or general numher of representatives. 2nd — That which relates to a comparative statement of the representation of the English, when contrasted with the Irish counties and towns. As to the first, your Committee deem it right to bring the attention of the Association to the mode in which the number of Irish members to sit in the united parliament was calculated by Lord Castlekeagh — and for this purpose we refer to the scale drawn up by him, and exhibited to the Irish parliament. * It is a significant commentary on En220 acres ; its real property assessed to poor-rate in 1841, £735,234 per ann. ; its population in 1841, 174,743 persons; the num- ber of its members — county 3, Bridport 2, Dorchester 2, * If it should be suggested to blend the proportions of liability and fiscal ability, the relative numbers would be found 150 to 508; and if a third ingredient were added, viz. that of population, the proportions would result in 156 to 502. Thus, in any way we consider it, the present state of things is unjust. THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 55 Poole 2, Lyme Regis 1, Shaftesbury I, Warehain 1, Weymouth 2 — total 14. The area of Gal way is — county 1,485>533 acres, town 25,059 acres — total 1,510,592 aci'es ; the rental, as esti- mated by Griffith — county £850,000, town (excluding the value of the houses) £18,894 — total rental £868,894; and if the value of the houses in the town be included, not less than £900,000 per annum. The population in 1841 was — county 422,923, town 17,275— total 440,198. Members— county 2, town 2 — total members 4. In each of the particulars of area, rental, and population, Galway greatly exceeds Dorsetshire ; yet Dorsetshire has 14 representatives, while Galway enjoys only 4 The conclusion to be drawn from a comparison of the num- ber of persons qualified to vote in each country, sufficiently proves, that in proportion to its population and resources, Ire- land does not possess an electoral body nearly as numerous as that of England. The population of Ireland in 1841 was 8,175,238 persons. The number of electors registered between the 1st February, 1835, and the 1st February, 1843, was as follows : — Counties, 63,389; cities, 27,091 ; boroughs, 19,465 ; total, 109,945 ; being less by 14,332 than the number regis- tered during the five yeai's previous to the 1st February, 1837. But, inasmuch as this registry extends over a period of eight years, a large deduction, probably not less than one-third, ought to be made for double registries, deaths, and expiration of title. After these deductions have been made, the actual number of persons qualified to vote, cannot be assumed to be more than 80,000, or say one per cent, on the population. If property be regarded as the legitimate basis of the franchise, the number of electors is almost equally inadequate in reference to this test. Assuming the rental of Ireland to be £15,000,000 per annum, which is not far from the truth, there would not be more than one elector for every £187 10^. of rental. Now, in the first year after the Reform Act, the proportion of electors to popu- lation in England was, in counties as 1 to 24, and in boroughs and cities as 1 to 17. The number of electors in England has since that time considerably increased. In Ireland the consti- tuency is yearly diminishing. So much for the general view. Now look at the detail. Assuming first that the parliamentary franchise ought to be commensurate with population, let us compare the number of electors in two counties of Ireland and England in which the population is nearly the same — Mayo and Lincolnshire. In Mayo, which has only two representa- 56 APPENDIX, NO. I. tlves, the population in 1841 was 388,887 persons. The num- ber of electors registered between the 1st February, 1835, and the 1st February, 1843, was 1494. This number is subject to a deduction of say one-third for double registries, deaths, and loss of title. In Lincolnshire, which is represented by eleven members, the population was in 1841, 362,717 per- sons, the number of electors qualified to vote in 1840 was, county electors, 18,876 — town electors, 3,999 — total, 22,875. But if it be said that the franchise ought not to be proportion- ate to population, but to property, let us compare two counties in regard to rateable property. In Meath the population amounted in 1841 to 183,828 persons; the rateable rental, ac- cording to the townland valuation, which is much below the actual rent, to £527,593 ; the number of electors registered between the 1st of February, 1835, and 1st February, 1843, 1481, subject to deduction for double registries, deaths, and loss of qualifications. In Westmorland the population was in 1841, 56,469 persons ; the real property rated to poor rate in 1841 was £266,335 ; the number of electors qualified to vote in 1840 was, county, 4,480; town, (Kendal,) 351; total, 4,831. Now, if Meath had a constituency as large as that of Westmorland, in proportion to the real property of each county, Meath would have about 9000 electors instead of 1481 upon the registry, of whom probably not more than 1000 are qualified to vote. Will any one who has followed me in this comparison, contend that the Irish parliamentary franchise is more liberal than that of England ? We borrow from the pages of tlie Duhlin Weekly Register, an admirable illustration by the excellent pro- prietor of that valuable paper, of the grievance on Ireland, in comparison with Wales : — COMPARATIVE RESOURCES OF WALES AND CORK. In the late discussion in the corporation, Mr. O'Connell remarked that though Wales had only the one-tenth of the population of Ireland, it received an addition of six members by the arrangement under the reform bill, though all Ireland received only five. < He also remarked, that the population of Cork is about equal to that of Wales, and yet that Cork had only two members, whereas Wales had twenty-eight. His observation was applied to the rural population ; but an honour- THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 57 able member used it as a point against him, that Cork has altogether eight members (including those for the city and boroughs). The same honourable member adverted to the wealth of Wales, evidently implying, that if that principality had a great superiority of members, it was a distinction to which it was entitled by its superior riches. Let us see how the facts stand in this matter. The only pai'liamentary paper, within our recollection, that gives an account of the relative amounts of the English, Irish, Scotch, and Welch revenue, is one published in 1832 (sessional number, 206). It gave the following totals : — English £42,910,280 Irish 4,329,101 Scotch ... ... ... ... 5,113,353 Welch 348,710 This is a very small revenue for " rich " Wales ; and, small as it is, nearly one-third of the whole is made up of land and assessed taxes. There is scarcely a port in Wales deserving the name, and therefore the whole custom duty of this opulent principality amounts only to £2G,139. We shall compare both excise and customs with those of Cork : — Cork Customs £263,364 Welch ditto 26,139 DiflFerence in favour of Cork ... 237,225 Cork Excise 272,525 Welch ditto 176,046 Difference in favour of Cork ... 96,479 Total Revenue of. Cork, without land or assessed taxes ... .. 535,889 Total Revenue of Wales, including land and assessed taxes ... ... 348,710 DiflFerence in favour of Cork ... 187,179 Cork is not more than a third of the area of Wales, but its powers of production greatly exceed these of the whole princi- pality. The estimated value of the property assessed to the poor rates in Wales, in 1815, was £2,130,151. This we should 58 APPENDIX NO. L take to be much under the value of the Cork property. There were in Cork, in 1831, above 118,000 houses. Half of them at £20 a year, are worth £1,180,000 per annum; the other half, at £10 a year, are worth £590,000 per annum. Both these amounts make £1,770,000; and the landed rental cannot be of much less amount. Let us take the whole rental, however, at £3,100,000, and it is a third higher than that of Wales. It is curious to observe, too, how much beneath Cork the entire principality is in the sums raised for local purposes. In 1832, the county rates in Wales amounted only to £41,000. They are now probably £50,000 ; but in the last year, the county rates of Cork amounted to £110,403. Let us put all these tests of relative wealth in tabular form, the better to facilitate comparison. Wales. Cork. Revenue £348,000 ... £535,000 Rental 2,100,000 ... 3,100,000 County Rates 50,000 ... 110,000 Total £2,498,000 Total £3,745,000 Revenue alone, however, is enough for our present purposes. In that respect Cork is a fourth, or 25 per cent, beyond Wales. Therefore, on this ground (and it is the great one relied upon in England) Cork ought to have to the extent of a fourth more members than Wales. She should, therefore, have 35 members when Wales has 28 ; but instead of 35 she has only 8 for the entire county. The Welch and Cork members amount altoge- ther to 36. If these were allotted to each in proportion to their relative wealth, the number for Wales would be 16, and for Cork 20. Wales. Cork. Representation as it is ... ... 28 .. 8 Repi'esentation as it ought to be . . 16 ... 20 It follows, therefore, that Wales has 12 members more than she ought to have, and Cork 12 less. If all the additional members given to Wales were added to the 5 given to all Ire- land, it would be a smaller measure of justice than Cork alone might claim on a comparison of her pretensions, at least with Wales. — Dublin Weekly Register. THE INADEQUATE UEPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 59 We conclude this article with extracts from Eeports published by the Precursor Association of Ireland, in 1839, bearing on the details of the Franchise Injustices, and witli the two interesting Appendices to the Keport from which we first quoted : — In England there are the following nine parliamentary fran- chises, or rights of voting, in counties : First — The franchise of 40*. freehold for a life or lives. This franchise requires occupation. Second — The franchise of 40*. freehold, arising from an estate in fee-simple — that is, in perpetuity. This franchise does not require occupation. Third — The franchise of £10 clear yearly value, for a life or lives, or in fee. This franchise does not require occupation. Fourth — The franchise of £10 clear yearly value, in a copy- hold estate. This franchise does not require occupation. Fifth — The original lessee or assignee of a term originally of sixty years or upwards, of the clear yearly value of £10. This franchise does not require occupation. Sixth — The original lessee or assignee of a term originally of at least twenty years, of the clear yearly value of £50. This franchise does not require occupation. Seventh — The sub-lessee or assignee of a sub-lease of a term originally not less than sixty years, of the clear yearly value of £10. This franchise does require occupation. Eighth — The subdessee or assignee of a sub-lease of a term not less originally than twenty years, of the clear yearly value of £50. This franchise requires occupation. Ninth — Any tenant whatsoever, bona Jide liable to a rent of £50 a year, whether he have any profit or not. This franchise does require occupation. The five parliamentary franchises for counties in Ireland, are as follow : First — A freehold of the clear yearly value of £10. This franchise does require occupation. Second — The lessee or assignee of a term of not less origin- ally than twenty years, having a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value of £10. This franchise also requires occupation. Third — A freehold of the clear yearly value of £20. This franchise does not require occupation. 60 APPENDIX, NO. I. Fourth — The lessee or assignee of a term, of not less ori- ginally than sixty years, and having a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value of £10. This franchise does not re- quire occupation. Fifth — The lessee or assignee of a term of not less originally than fourteen years, and having a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value of £20. This franchise does not require occupation. Rut all sub-lessees, or the assignees of an under lease of any of the above terms, do require occupation. It is quite true, that they have given us a copyhold franchise, simply because there are no copyhold tenures in Ireland. Your Committee further remark, that there are the follow- ing differences also existing betvreen the English £10 freehold franchise, and the £10 freehold franchise in Ireland. First — That no £10 freeholder in England need attend the registry, or make any proof of his title, unless his right to register shall have been publicly objected to, and a specific notice of such objection served upon him. In Ireland every £10 freeholder must attend, and prove his case, and be liable to a cross-examination upon oath, and he must also produce his title deeds, or account upon oath for their non-production. Secondly — The occupation of the premises by the voter is not necessary for a £10 freeholder in England. He is entitled to register, although he never was in possession, provided he received one half year's rent ; and he is entitled to vote the moment after being registered. On the contrary, in Ireland the £10 freeholder must have been in the actual occupation of the premises for six months previous to registry, and he cannot vote for six months after registry. Thirdly — The English £10 franchise has this additional ad- vantage over the Irish, that any number of joint tenants, ten- ants in common or in co-partnfery, may register in England, provided the property be of sufficent value to give to each a clear profit of £10 a year. In short, the English reform act is intended to increase and accumulate the number of voters. The Irish reform act, on the contrary, was drawn up with the concealed and distinctly disavowed, but real desii'e to restrict and limit the elective franchise, and to exclude from the right of voting as many of the Irish people as possible. This plan, so derogatory to Ireland, as to make the Irish THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 61 reform act as limited and as unsatisfactory as possible, was carried into effect under the management of Lord Stanley, whose hatred to the people of Ireland is the most conspicuous feature of his conspicuous character, and by the instrumentality of the then solicitor-general for Ireland, Mr. Crampton. It is now quite manifest, that this learned gentleman, now Mr. Justice Crampton, contrived, by some mistake or other, to draw the Irish bill in a manner so little consistent with the instructions which he received from the cabinet, that he has himself, as a judge, pronounced an opinion, that the construction of the act is directly opposite to that which the ministers intended by their instructions to him. The point upon which this contradiction arises, relates to the value of the £10 franchise ; and your committee are In a position to prove, that Mr. Solicitor-General, Crampton distinctly stated, that he had In this respect complied with the instructions he had received, although his own opinion now is, that the Instructions to which we now allude, have not been complied with. To make this matter more plainly understood. It is our duty to bring public attention to the construction which several of the Irish judges are reported to have put upon the Irish act, with respect to the mode of calculating the value of the property comprised In the franchise. This Is a matter of vital importance, as such construction actually raises the pecuniary value of the franchise to one of £20 a year value, or thereabouts, instead of the £10 franchise intended by the legislature. The first act which introduced the £10 franchise Into Ireland, was the 10th of Geo. IV., c. 8, and which was the first act that introduced the present form and mode of registry in Ireland. By the sixth section of that act, it was made necessary for the claimant, to entitle him to register, to prove, beside his title and occupation of the land, that a solvent and responsible tenant could afford to pay, fairly and without collusion, for his premises, the annual sum of £10 as an additional rent; and in the affidavit which the claimant was bound to make, upon being declared entitled to register, he was, by the sixth schedule of the 10th Geo. IV., c. 8, made to swear in these words, " and that a solvent and responsible tenant could, as I verily believe, afford to pay for the said premises, as an additional rent, fairly ' and without collusion, the annual sum of £10 over and above all rent to which I am liable in respect thereof." 02 APPENDIX, NO. I. It was easily perceived, that the rent which a solvent tenant could pay, over and above the rent payable by the claimant, was not a fair test of the profit arising* in due course of husbandry out of the lands, to the occupying tenant ; because any solvent tenant who paid, for example, £10 a year more than the rent payable by the claimant, would, and ought to realise out of the premises, by due course of husbandry, an additional or further profit ; and such additional profit, though honajide produced by the land, and though a bona fide income to the person in possession, was not, according to the 10th of Geo. IV. to be taken into calculation at all, in estimating the value of the £10 franchise. And in like manner the actual profit and income derived by the claimant, fairly and hona fide out of the lands, was not to be taken into consideration, though it should amount to £10 a year. Nay, though it should be greater than £10 a year, unless it were so much greater, as to induce a solvent tenant to pay an additional rent of £10 a year, with a fair prospect of obtaining his natural agricultural profit from the additional advance. The oppressive effect of this franchise, as established by tlie 8th of Geo. IV. was so universally felt, that it was one of the mischiefs which required reform, and accordingly, in the Irish reform act, 2d and 3d Wm. IV., c. 88, the words introduced to describe the £10 franchise were, "having a beneficial interest in the premises, of the clear yearly value of not less than £10 over and above all rent and charges." It is further to be observed, that the 10th of Geo. IV. was repealed by the 2d and 3d Wm. IV. in every thing that related to the registry, and in the new registry there was nothing said of what a solvent tenant would or could pay ; and instead of proving anything respecting a solvent tenant, the claimant, in addition to proof of his title, was directed to prove the property in respect of which he sought to be registered, to be " of the value and nature by this act prescribed;" and in the schedule to the reform act, (see schedule C, No. 6,) the affidavit for registry, under the reform act, is set out in substance the same with the affidavit in the 1 0th of Geo. IV., save in this one most important particular, namely, that the words relating to what a solvent tenant could pay, are totally omitted. It was upon this point, that the then Solicitor-General Crampton stated, that he had complied with the instructions of the cabinet, to make the " beneficial interest " the test of the £10 value. It is said, however, that Mr. Justice Crampton THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 63 has given on the bench an opinion — we know not whetlier judicial or extra-judicial — that the " beneficial interest " was not made the test of the value of the franchise, under his own Irish reform bill. Whether it be true, that he gave such an opinion or not, is, after all, uncertain ; but it is quite certain, and part of history, that he solemnly assured a cabinet minister, that he had in that bill, made the " beneficial interest " the test of the franchise. We submit that the propriety of the test of value, for which the Irish people have so often in vain contended, is elucidated by the Scotch reform act ; for the parliamentary franchise in counties in Scotland, is upon an equally liberal foundation, as it is extended to " all persons, who are owners of any lands or tenements in the county, of the yearly value of £10, and which shall actually yield, or be capable of yielding that value to the claimant, above feu duty or rent, or other considerations which he may be bound to pay for the same." — Report of Precur- sor Association on County Franchise. Your Committee beg leave to state, that in Ireland, before the passing of the Reform Act, there were in the open towns and boroughs in Ireland, five distinct classes of voters. 1st. — Freeholders of 40*. holding in fee simple or perpetual estate. 2nd — Freeholders of 40s. for a life or lives. 3rd — Freemen by right of birth, servitude, or marriage. 4th Freemen by grace especial. 5th Persons occupying houses of £5 annual value. Your Committee cannot repress their just indignation when they state, that of these franchises, four have been annihilated by the Reform Act, and the only one preserved is that of free- men by birth, servitude, or marriage — the most obnoxious, as we shall shew, in its practical results, of any franchise that could well be imagined — the nuisance of freemen by grace especial always excepted. We ought, perhaps, to observe in passing, that the freemen by grace especial, and the 40*. freeholders, if residents, were preserved for the lives of the persons entitled thereto, and in existence at the time of passing of the reform act. Your Committee complain bitterly of the fact, that although by the Irish reform act, as it passed the House of Commons, the four rights of the 40*. freeholders and of freemen were preserved during the lives of persons then qualified, but were not to be renewed or continued to any other persons, yet the 64 APPENDIX, NO. I. Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, at the instigation of the faction hostile to his native country, having insisted that the freemen by birth, servitude, and marriage, should be preserved in Ireland, Lord Grey, with ready complacency assented, but did not insist that the resident 40*. freeholders should be equally preserved. Thus giving a decided advantage to the Orange faction, who were already in possession of the corporations, and enabling them to commit the gross and flagitious frauds which we shall detail more at length hereafter. It will be observed, that there are two classes of cities and towns that come within the scope of our present Report. The first class consists of the cities and towns in England and in Ireland, that are counties in themselves. Secondly, cities and towns that are not counties, and in the word "towns" we mean to Include all boroughs. Let us take the first class in England, which comprises a great number of cities and towns, and there are the following parliamentary franchises in them. 1st. — Freeholders of 40*. annual value, for a life or lives, as in counties — this franchise requires actual occupation. 2nd A freehold in perpetuity of 40*. value — this does not require actual occupation. 3rd The enjoyment of certain tenures, called Burgage tenures, without any reference to value. This franchise does not require occupation. 4th Occupation of any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building, of the clear yearly value of £10. This franchise requires occupation. 5th Freemen admitted in respect of birth or servitude. In the Irish counties of cities and towns, the two first of these franchises are annihilated ; that is, the two classes of 40*. freeholders — it is perfectly manifest therefore, that a great number of voters are thus destroyed. The third class, namely, the holders of Burgage tenures, never existed in Ireland. It follows, therefore, that there is an entire class in England, to multiply the comparative number of voters there ; and there are two classes more, which were preserved in the favoured country, England, but were destroyed in Ireland — thus creating another of these odious contrasts which make the flesh creep, at perceiving the vile injustice done to the Irish people, by depriving them of rights which their English neighbours enjoy. Your Committee emphatically call upon those who are for THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 65 continuing' the legislative Union between both countries, now to say, whether they will acquiesce in this degrading disparity of franchise, or come forward now to assist this Society, in procuring that equality, without which there may be a nominal, but cannot be a real Union. Having specified the franchises in the English counties of cities and towns, we proceed to mention those in similar places in Ireland. They are these — 1st — £10 freeholders. This franchise requires actual occu- pation. 2nd. — Leaseholders of a term originally of 20 years, of the value of £10 a year. This requires occupation. 3rd — Householders, occupying any house, warehouse, count- ing-house, or shop, of the clear yearly value of £1 0. This fran- chise requires actual occupation. Your Committee desire to bring the attention of the Irish public to this important fact, that the third of these three fran- chises includes the other two — each of the three requires actual occupation, and £10 annual value — so that it really is an impudent attempt at delusion, to create nominally three franchises, as if a great boon was offered the Irish, while, in reality, there is but one ; and therefore we shall treat them but as one, and justly denominate as the second franchise, 2nd — The freehold of the clear yearly value of £20, which franchise does not require occupation ; and as the 3rd The lessee or assignee of a term, originally of GO years, of the annual value of £10, which does not require occupation. 4th. — The lessee or assignee of a term of 14 years, of the annual value of £20, which does not require occupation. 5th. — Freemen admitted in respect of birth, servitude, or marriage. We now proceed to the other class of cities and towns, namely, those which are not counties in themselves — these are commonly called boroughs. In England the rights of voting in boroughs, are as follow : 1st £10 householders requiring occupation. 2nd Freemen by birth and servitude. In Ireland also, there are two franchises in boroughs — 1st. — £10 householders requiring occupation. 2nd. — Freemen by birth, servitude, or marriage. We should, however, observe, that another right to vote seems to have been worked out by judicial decisions. It is 66 APPENDIX, NO. I. that of the 1 2 or 13 burgesses which formed the parliamentary coustituency in each of the boroughs instituted by James the 1st, no less than 40 of which were created by him in one day. This addition, of course, is unfavourable to the Irish people, and the importance of such an addition will appear when we come to consider the extreme paucity of electors in our boroughs. Your Committee next deem it their duty to designate the points in which the Reform Act of England has been more favourable to English cities and towns, than the Irish Reform Act has been to those in Ireland. We will follow the classifi- cation already adopted, and will begin with cities and towns which are counties in themselves. The advantages of the English over the Irish are these — 1st. — The admissibility of large classes of voters, as 40*. freeholdei's. 2nd — The increase of such voters, by it not being necessary to occupy the premises when held in perpetuity. 3rd. — The persons possessed of Burgage tenures, and wllo can register and vote without occupying the same. Let it be remembered, that England, though the richer country, has these three classes of voters in its cities and towns being counties, whilst the last of them never was in existence at all in this country. The other two were in existence in Ire- land, but were taken away by the iniquitous Act of the 10th George IV., and were not restored by the Irish Reform Act at all. 4th. — The £10 freehold franchise in counties of cities or towns in England, does not require actual occupation ; whereas in Ireland it does require actual occupation, and requires that such occupation should be continuous. It is manifest, therefore, that this distinction of the necessity of occupancy in Ireland, and its being dispensed with in Eng- land, tends to increase the number of voters, and the facility of voting in England, and, in the same proportion, to diminish them in Ireland. Your Committee come next to the consideration of the constituencies in the boroughs in England and in Ireland ; especially as relates to the £10 householders, who ought to form the effective constituencies of these boroughs. The English, in this particular, have the following advan- tages — 1st — That the premises which in England give the franchise, consist not only of a house, warehouse, counting-house, or THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. ()7 shop, to which they are limited in Ireland, but expressly include any other building whatsoever. Now it would be difficult to estimate a, priori, the difference which the omission of the term " other building " has made in the Irish borough registries. Tory assistant-barristers have held, that corn-stores, and provision-stores, nay, even manufac- tories of every kind, were not ^^ warehouses" under the meaning of the act. It has also been held, that stables belonging to coach and car-owners, do not confer a right to vote under the Irish act, though they would clearly under the English one ; and the argument for rejecting the claims of the owners to register, has been fortified by the fact, that the words " other building" were included in the English, and excluded from the Irish act. The second great advantage which the English £10 house- holders possess over the Irish, consists in this — that the actual occupation prior to registry, by the voter, need not be con- tinuously in the premises out of which he seeks to vote, but may be in any premises of similar value within the borough. In Ireland, on the contrary, the claimant must occupy conti- nuously the same identical premises, for six months prior to, and for six months after the registry, before he can vote ; any change of residence during that time, deprives the claimant of the right to register, or of the right to vote. The third advantage which the English £10 householders have over the Irish, consists in this, that in England, joint occupiers of houses, or other sufficient premises, can register and vote, if the value of the premises, when divided by the number of occupants, gives £10 to each. By this means part- ners, however numerous, may become electors, and the joint occupancy, for the purposes of a lucrative trade, augments the number of voters for an English borough, in the ratio of part- nerships carrying on business within that borough. It is quite the reverse in Ireland — none of the persons in joint occupation can become an elector, by virtue of premises so held. Suppose in England premises are held in a borough, of the clear value of £50 a year, by a firm consisting of five partners, each of them can register, and become an elector. But in Ireland not one of them could become an elector ; nay, if only two partners held premises in Ireland, worth £1000 a year, neither one nor the other of them can register. This is a monstrous inequality between the two countries, F 2 68 APPENDIX, NO. I. and gives a proportionate advantage to England over Ireland, which is utterly inconsistent with an Union between them. The fourth, and the greatest difference between the boroughs in England and Ireland, consists in the rate-paying clauses — In England the £10 householder can register, and vote, upon payment of two taxes — First — The poor rates — and Secondly — The assessed taxes. He has an easy access to the rate books of the collector of both these taxes — he can have no difficulty in making the payment of them — they are always receivable without any inconvenience. But in Ireland the case is widely different. The £10 house- holder, especially in the cities, is liable to the payment of a number of taxes before he can register or vote, including Grand Jury Cess. — Report of Precursor Association on City, Town, and Borough Franchise. ADDENDA, No. I. Compensation for Borough Rights extinguished hy the Union, and Names of Parties to whom it was seve- rally awarded. BOROUGHS. Clonekilty, Co. Cork ... Castlemartyr, ditto Charleville, ditto Newcastle, Co. Dublin ... Ballinakill, Queen's Co... St. Johnstown, County Longford ... Mullingar, Co. W. Meath Harristown, Co. Kildare Boyle, Co. Roscommon Longford Augher, Co. Tyrone ... Kilbeggan, Co. W. Meath Parties to whom Awarded. Richard, Earl of Shannon ... ditto ditto Edmund, Earl of Cork Portrieve and Burgesses, Right ) Hon. David Latouche ... ^ Charles, Marquis of Drogheda George, Earl of Granard Ditto Sovereign and Burgesses, and John > Latouche, Esq. ... ... ^ Robert, Earl of Erris, Executor of > Robert, Earl of Kingston \ Thomas, Earl of Longford ... John James, Marquis of Abercorn ... Gustavus Lambert, Esq. Compen- sation. £15,000 15,000 7,500 7,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 THE INADEQUATE IIEPIIESENTATION GRIEVANCE. 69 BOROUGHS. Castlebar, Co. Mayo Kilmallick, Co. Limerick Duleek, Co. Meath Taghmon, Co. Wexford. Carrick, Drumrusk Belturbet, Co. Cavan ... Ballyshannon, Co. Done- gal Newtownards, Co. Down Banagher, King's County St. Johnstown, Co. Done- gal Callan, Co. Kilkenny ... Baltimore, Co. Cork Dingle, Co. Kerry Carysfort, Co. Wicklow Rathcormac, Co. Cork... Hillsborough, Co. Down Monaghan Lifford, Co. Donegal ... Ratoath, Co. Meath Fore Ardfert, Co. Kerry Gouran, Co. Kilkenny ... Thomastown, ditto Clonmines, Co. Wexford Bannow, ditto Fethard, ditto Bangor, Co. Down Jamestown, Co. Leitrim. Killyleagh, Co. Down ... Gorey, Co. Wexford ... Blessington, Co. Wicklow Wicklow Inistioge, Co. Kilkenny Cavan Parties to whom Awarded. Richard, Earl of Lucan Richard Oliver, Esq. Executor and Trustees under will of H. Bruen, Esq. Executors and Trustees under will of Henry Bruen, Esq. ... ^ Robert, Earl of Leitrim Armar, Earl of Belmore Ditto James, Earl of Caledon Right Hon. W. B. Ponsonby Alice, Countess of Wicklow, and ^ the Right Hon. Wm. Howard i- and H. Howard ... ... ) George, Lord Callan Sir John Freke, Bart. Richard Boyle Townsend ... John, Earl of Carysfort Trustees under will of Lord Rivers- ) dale S Arthur, Marquis of Downshire Lord Clermont, Lord Rossmore, ^ T. Jones, and Henry Westenra, >• in trust ... ... ... 3 John, Earl of Erne ... George Lowther, Esq. Arthur, Marquis of Downshire John, Earl of Glandore Henry Webbore, Viscount Clifden Ditto Charles, Marquis of Ely and Chas. "l Tottenham, Esq. to be paid to ( Trustee, under Will of Henry, C late Earl of Ely ) Ditto Ditto Earl of Carrick Hon. Edmond and Hon. T. Ward... John King, Esq. Trustees under Settlement of Gil- ) bert King, of Charlestown, Esq. ^ Sir J. Stevenson Blackwood Stephen Ram, Esq. ... Arthur, Marquis of Downshire, and Trustees under Will of Dunbar, Esq. William Tighe, Esq. Ditto, and Trustees of Sir W. ) Fownes ... ... ... ^ Theophilus Clements, Esq Thomas Nesbitt, Esq. ire, 1 Compen- sation. £15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 7,500 70 APPENDIX, NO. I. BOROUGHS. Philipstown, Kings' Co. Carlingford, Co. Louth... Dunleer, ditto ... Askeaton, Co. Limerick Charlemont, Co. Armagh Middleton, Co. Cork ... Naas, Co. Kildare Marjboro, Queen's Co. Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford Ardee, Co. Louth Doneraile, Co. Cork ... Lanesborough, Co. Long- ford Kells, Co. Meath Lismore, Co.Waterford . Tallagh Newtown-limavady, Co. Derry Killybegs, Co. Donegal.. Athenry, Co. Gal way ... Athboy, Co. Meath Baltinglass, Co. Wicklovv Fethard, Co. Tipperary . Trim, Co. Meath Tuam, Co. Gal way Knocktopher, Co. Kil- kenny Granard, Co. Longford . Athy, Co. Kildare Kildare Randalstown, Co. Antrim Tulsk, Co. Roscommon . Donegal Roscommon ... Parties to whom AArARDED. Earl of Belvedere, Earl of Lanes- f boro', & Countess of Lanesboro' s Guardian of Ross Balfour Moore, a Minor Rt. Hon. John Foster and Henry \ Coddington ... ... ^ Sovereign and Burgesses of Dunleer Earl of Carrick Hon. Edward Massy ... Sir Joseph Hoar, Bart. Sir Vere Hunt, Bart. Francis W. Earl of Charlemont Viscount Middleton, and Bailiffs > and Burgesses ... ... y John, Earl of Mayo, Hon. & Rev. ^ R. Burke, and Sovereign and^ Burgesses ... ... ... } Right Hon. J. Parnell Right Hon. Charles H. Coote Cornelius, Lord Lismore Robert Cornwall, Esq. Charles and W. P. Ruxton, Esq. ... William Ruxton, Esq. Viscount Doneraile ... Luke, Lord Clonbrock Marquis of Headfort... William, Duke of Devonshire Ditto Robert, Earl of Londonderry Lord Viscount Castlereagh ... Henry, Earl of Cony ngham ... Theophilus Blakeney, Esq. John, Earl of Darnley Earl of Aldboi-ough, &c. Cornelius, Lord Lismore Thomas Barton, Esq. Richard, Marquis Wellesley John, Lord Clanmorris Hon. W. Yelverton ... Sir G. Shee, Bart Right Hon. Sir H. Langrishe G. F. Lyttleton and W. F. Gren- 7 ville, Esqrs. ... ... 5 William, Lord Ennismore ... William, Duke of Leinster ... Ditto Chas. H. St. John, Earl O'Neill ... James Caulfield, Guardian of St. ) George Caulfield ... ... ^ Arthur, Earl of Arran Henry, Lord Mount-Sandford Compen- sation. £15,000 THE INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION GRIEVANCE. BOROUGHS. Navan, Co. Meath St. Canice, &c., Irish- town, Co. Kilkenny ... Clogher, Co. Tyrone ... Old Leighlin, Co. Carlo w Antrim Swords, Co. Dublin Parties to whom Awarded. John, Lord Tara Peter, Earl of Ludlow Commissioners of First Fruits, claimed by the Bishop of Ossory Commissioners of First Fruits, ? claimed by the Bishop of Clogher ^ Commissioners of First Fruits, ) claimed by Bishop of Ferns ) Earl Massareene Hon. Henry Skeffington Hon. W. J. Skeffington Hon. Chichester Skeffington No claim admitted, but compensa-l tion vested in trust for public ( purposes, Schools, &c., within ( the town ... ... ... ] Compen- sation. £7,500 7,300 15,000 15,000 15,000 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 15,000 Total Compensation, £1,237,500 55 boroughs vested in peers, and for which compensation was awarded to them by the commissioners. 3 boroughs vested in bishops, for which payment was award- ed to the first fruits fund. 24 boroughs vested in private individuals, who received com- pensation according to their alleged duration of tenure ; and one borough, Swords, so notoriously corrupt, that none of the many claimants could establish any valid claim to money com- pensation. ADDENDA No. II. The Bishop of Ossory's Claim for Compensation, for the Borough of the Irishtown of Kilkenny, contains thefol- lotving Statement : " That by immemorial custom, part of the oath of office taken by the Portrieve, is to be true to the interest of the Bishop of Ossory. " That for a long series of years, all elections of members of parliament have been held in the bishop's palace yard, and the other corporate meetings in his hall. " That the Burgesses are alwavs elected on the recommenda- tion of the Bishop of Ossory. 72 APPENDIX, NO. I. " That neither property, residence, or service, in the borough, is required of any freeman ; and that hardly one inhabitant of the borough is at present a freeman. " That the influence of the bishop has always been so power- ful, that all members of parliament, and burgesses, have been uniformly elected on his recommendation, without one instance to the contrary. " That the circumstances above-mentioned have given the Bishops of Ossory so much additional consequence, and obtain- ed for them so much attention from government, that the bishops of that see, (with the exception of only two bishops, who died soon after their appointment,) for above a century past, have been all translated to much more eligible bishoprics. " That by the Union your memorialist is deprived of that influence and consequence which his predecessors always en- joyed, and from which they derived great advantage ; and therefore considers himself entitled to claim any allowance which may be awarded for said borough ceasing ta send mem- bers to parliament." APPENDIX, No. II. "THE REGENCY QUESTION." On the 5th February, 1789, the lord lieutenant, the Marquis of Buckingham, when opening the session, an- nounced to the Irish parliament, the mental indisposition of George the Third, and his consequent unfitness for hold- ing the reins of government. An attempt was made to procure an adjournment for a week, so as to gain time for the resolutions of the British parliament vipon the subject to be sent over, and presented for concurrence. But this was defeated by 128 to 74, upon the ground of its being derogatory to the dignity of the Irish legislature. A motion to enter upon the business of supply was also lost ; and all consideration of that subject put oif for a week. Mr. Grattan moved that the house should meet on the succeeding Wednesday, on which day an address to the Prince of Wales, requesting him to take the government of the empire as regent, during his father's illness, was moved by Mr. Connolly, M.P. for Londonderry ; and, after much opposition from the treasury bench, carried without a division. In the Lords, similar proceedings took place upon tlie 16th instant; the address there being moved by Lord Charlemont, and carried Avith twenty-three dissentient voices. These twenty- three lords — of whom four were spi- ritual peers — entered protests against the measure, mainly upon the ground that an act was necessary before an address, 74 APPENDIX, NO. II. to enable the poAvers of regent to be assumed. One peer, Lord Glandore, seems to have gone nearer the mark than the others, in a paragraph signed by himself alone. We shall, at the conclusion of our short recital of the proceed- ings in both parliaments into the regency-dispute, offer a few observations on these remarks of Lord Glandore. "To address his Royal Highness to accept the regency, before he is yet appointed in Great Britain, is inviting him to assume a power, which, under the actual and existing constitution of Ireland, he cannot exercise ; inasmuch as by statute 10th of Henry VH., no bill can receive the royal assent here that is not certified from Great Britain, under the great seal of England, and until his Royal Highness shall have authority to direct the use of that great seal, he cannot dis- charge the functions of the regal office for Ireland. It is impossible, according to the laws and constitution of this king- dom, that any person should be regent of Ireland, who is not at the same time regent of Great Britain." On Tuesday, the 19th, both houses waited on the lord lieutenant with their address, and requested him to trans- mit the same, which he declined doing, upon the general grounds stated in the protest of the twenty-three lords. The day following, Mr. Grattan moved in the Com- mons, that the right honourable Thomas Connolly, right honourable J. O'Neil, right honourable W. B. Ponsonby, and J. Stewart, esquire, should be commissioners to present the address to his Royal Highness. The Duke of Leinster and the Earl of Charlemont were chosen by the lords to represent them upon the occasion. Mr. Grattan subsequently moved and carried amotion, declaring that the two houses had thus discharged " an indispensable duty ;" and another, conveying censure upon the viceroy. And upon the 25 th of February, he succeeded in limiting the " supplies" to three months. Meantime the commissioners arrived in London, and on the day following their arrival, viz., the 26th, presented their address to the Prince of Wales. The latter received THE IlEGENCY QUESTION. 75 them with many expressions of esteem and gratitude ; but postponed a definite answer, until the result should be known of an apparent amendment in the king's condition. His Majesty's recovery rendered it unnecessary for the Prince to make his second answer, other than a repetition of his complimentary expressions and thanks. In the British parliament, the following proceedings took place upon this question : — On the 16th of December, 1788, Mr. Pitt moved and carried three resolutions — the first, affirmatory of the fact, that the king's condition rendered him incapable of exer- cising the royal authority ; the second, declaratory of the right of the parliament of Great Britain to supply the proper remedy in such a contingency ; and the third, that they should consider that remedy. Upon the 30th of January following, both houses of parliament presented to the Prince of Wales a series of resolutions, appointing him regent ; but with the limitations of restricting him from creating peers, from granting offices, save during his majesty's pleasure, and from making any grants of the king's real or personal estate. The care of the king's person to be vested in the queen ; who was to have all authority over the household, and to be assisted by a special council. To these resolutions, fifty-five peers, in- cluding one bishop, were dissentient, on the grounds, that in these, and the former resolutions, the parliament was exceeding its constitutional powers — especially in the mat- ter of the limitations, which they denounced as derogatory to the due dignity, influence, and respect, which should attach to the kingly office under all circumstances. The prince replied by consenting to take on him the office of regent, even under the recited limitations, being moved thereto by the urgency of the case. The recovery of the king ended, of course, all proceedings in England, as well as in Ireland, relative to a regency. 76 APPENDIX, NO. II. In the protest of Lord Glandore, which we have quoted, the objection founded on the act of 10th Henry VII., commonly called " Poyning's Law," is Avell put. That act, by a singular mistake of the men of '82, remained on the statute book unrepealed, though modified and little used. The position, too, laid down in the last sentence quoted, to the effect, "that no person could be regent of Ireland, who was not, at the same time, regent of Great Brtain," was perfectly correct, according to the inter- pretation and spirit of the Irish act, 33 Henry VIIL, c. 1, (A.D. 1542,) uniting the crown of the former country to that of the latter. If the Irish parliament erred at all, it was in over-haste. It might, perhaps, have been better to have waited until the British parliament had conuultted the wilful error which they did commit, by their proposed limitations of the regent's authoi'ity. The argument against those limi- tations was irrefutable. The Prince of Wales being the king's natural and rightful successor, with full kingly powers, in case of physical death, should so have been considered to the fullest extent, in the then case of aliena- tion of mind, or mental death. This sound constitutional doctrine was what the Irish parliament contended for, with, perhaps, a too jealous haste. But the legislature of Great Britain, by the in fact illegal and unconstitutional restrictions they sought to impose on the prince, justified the anticipations which induced the Irish parliament to declare their opinion so promptly. All future differences on such questions after the Repeal of the Union, can well be obviated, by the international arrangement to which we not only assent, but actually propose, viz. — that the regent de facto in England shall be regent de Jure in Ireland. APPENDIX, No. III. IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE" CONTROVERSY. This old cause of bitter and woful dissension between This conho- the two countries, although adhuc sub Judice, may now be somftobe ^ said to be at length approaching a settlement. The events tiel ^ of the present time, and the next few months, must either establish finally and securely the claim of Ireland to legis- late for herself, or throw her back, for many a Aveary day of Avretchedness, into worse than her present state of legis- lative dependence upon Great Britain. Knowing the present temper of the Irish people, and their admirable self-control, and patient, though indomita- ble determination, we feel a confident assurance that the first of the two results we mention, will be that which will come to pass. Meantime it is well to have the history of the former gj^^^j^, ^^f struggles on this subject fresh in our minds. "■ The independence of the Irish parliament was in two two gne- ways assailed and restricted by England. ireiandln First, by the claim, as of right, made and asserted by viz^ ist par- tlie English parliament, to bind Ireland by their laws. interference Next, by the operation of a law, Avhich the influence of the English procured to be passed here, in Henry the 78 APPENDIX, NO. III. (•ouiicuin- Seventh's time — commonly called "Poyning's Law," from terference. |.|^g name of the Lord Deputy of the day — by which laAv it was provided, that no act could be passed by the Irish parliament, save such as had first been submitted to the privy council of England, and by them returned as one which they considered a proper subject to entertain. If they disapproved of the proposed act, they had the power of strangling it without more ado. Moiyneux It was against the first of these grievances that the cele- ncainst the bratcd Molyucux wrote his " Case of Ireland," published by him in 1698 ; and ordered by the British House of Commons to be burned by the common hangman, as an audacious interference with their rights — viz., with their invasions of the parliamentary rights of Ireland. Brief state- Molyncux provcs, mainly upon the high authority of ''Case°" '^ Sir Edward Coke, the free and unfettered grant of parlia- ments to Ireland, by Henry the Second. In 1216, Henry the Third granted Magna Charta to Ireland in precisely the same terms as the English grant, and confirmed it on two occasions afterwards, doing, however, little more than extending a previous grant of his father. King John, in his capacity as Lord of Ireland. In the year 1253, his Queen, being regent during his temporary absence, ad- dressed the " Archbishops, Bishops, Priors. Earls, Barons, Knights, Freemen, Citizens, and Burgesses of this land of Ireland," beseeching them for an aid of men and money against the king of Castile's hostile invasion of Gascony. In the reign of Edward the Second,* several of the most important of the acts up to that time passed in the British * A statute of the year 1356, the 31 Edward III., stat. 4, confirmatory of the grant- of John and the two first Henrys, after declaring the liberty of the Irish Church, goes on to authorize the calling together in parliament of the prelates and nobles of Ireland, and " quidam de discretioribus et pro- priorihus hominibns — ut tjostrcc et ipsius terrcR (scil. Hibernice) negolia trac- tentur, deducantur, et fideliter discutiantw ; et etiam terminentur." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 79 parliament, were confirmed and adopted by act of the Irish parliament, and others referred for examination and consi- deration. It was then declared, that only such of them as should be allowed and published, were to stand as laws in Ireland ; and an Irish act of the 10th Henry IV., followed by one in the 29th year of Henry VI., expressly provided and enacted, that no English law should have force, unless adopted, allowed, and published by the Irish parliament. Molyneux remarks, that these statutes, if they do give evidence of attempts to rule Ireland by purely British statutes ; yet, give equal evidence that the attempt was resisted, and all right to make it utterly disallowed. He proceeds to fm*nish several other instances of the necessity of adoption, by express enactments in Ireland, to give force to English statutes, allowing indeed, that English acts, merely declaratory of the common law of England, and not introductive of any new matter, had force, although not adopted specially as above. This, however, proceeded from the fact of their so being merely declaratory and expla- natory of the common law of England, established in Ire- land under the grants and charters of Henry the Second, King John, and Henry the Third. The instances of in- validity, without re-enactment in Ireland, of English laws introducing new matter, he brings down to the time at which he wrote, viz., the year 1698; and they continued after his time. He admits, that acts of the English parliament, prohibit- f \^i^gt\^e ing the plantation of tobacco, passed in the reign of Charles ^ifo'^^*^ci™!fes the Second, did bind Ireland, as did also other acts of the f^"^ second's same reign, injuring and nearly destroying our trade with the English colonies and plantations, and prohibiting our wool export to any coimtry but England : but he declares them innovations and grievous wrongs ; and indignantly demands — (p. 65, of 1773) — "And shall proceedings of eign. 80 APPENDIX, NO. III. thirty-seven years standing (viz., from 1660 to 1698) be urged against a nation, to deprive them of the rights and liberties which they enjoyed five hundred years before, and which were invaded without and against their consent, and from that to this have been constantly complained of? Let any English heart, that stands so justly in vindication of his own rifjhts and liberties, answer this question, and I have done !" The independence of the Irish parliament, that is, from any control of the British parliament, would then seem sufficiently proven up to the time of Charles the second. Noprece- Under Cromwell, indeed, acts had undoubtedly passed, cromweirs wliich wcrc held to bind Ireland — but they had that force merely by reason ot ins military possession oi Ireland — and could not be called acts of an English parliament exclu- sively, there having been Irish representatives summoned to London, and sitting in the commons there.* But of whatever force such acts may have been under the com- monwealth, they utterly ceased so to be, and were an- Failui'c m ^ j j ^ Moiyneux's nuUcd ou the restoration by the acts of settlement and case. •' explanation. Any precedent, therefore, given by them, * In the present Lord Monteagle's speech, after that of Mr. O'Connell opening the Repeal debate of 1834, this circumstance of Irish members sitting in Cromwell's parliament was mentioned, in order to bring in a quotation of some remarks of Moiyneux's on the subject, which Lord Monteagle considered an enlistment of that writer in the ranks of the sup- porters and favourers of the principles of a legislative Union. The words were — " If the parliament of England may bind Ireland, the people of Ire- land ought to have their representatives in that parliament ; and this, I believe, we should be willing enough to embrace, but this is a happiness we can hardly hope for." So far, however, as a case, radically bad, could be advantaged by the theoretic opinions of any writer, the case for a Union must lose what advan- tage the foregoing may be considered to have given it, if the next words of Molyneux be taken, viz : — " This sending of representatives out of Ireland, was found in process of time to be very troublesome and inconvenient ; (just our experience at the present day ;) and this, we presume, was the reason, that afterwards, when times were more settled, we foil again into our old track, and regular course of parliaments in our own country." (p. 60, edition of 1773.) THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVE KSY . 81 was removed from the statute book by the English parlia- ment themselves. Molyneux found himself rather in a dilemma, when he came to consider what had occurred, in the way of British legislation for Ireland, in the reign of William the Third. We transcribe his words : " I am now arrived at our present days, under the happy go- English vernment of his majesty king William III., and I am sorry to '^,':eLn(i'^'"^ reflect, that since the late revolution in these kingdoms, when sinc; ^^™^ the subjects of England have, more strenuously than ever, leigu'. asserted their own rights, and theliberty of parliaments, it has pleased them to bear harder on their poor neighbours, than has ever yet been done in many ages foregoing. I am sure what was then done by that wise and just body of senators, was per- fectly out of good will and kindness to us, under those miseries which our afflicted country of Ireland then suffered. But I fear some men have, since that, made use of what was then done, to other purposes than at first intended. Let us now see what that was, and consider the circumstances under which it was done. " In the year 1689, when most of the Protestant nobility, gen- try, and clergy of Ireland, were driven out of that kingdom by the insolencies and barbarities of the Irish Papists, who were then in arms throughout the kingdom, and in all places of authority under king James, newly returned to them out of France ; the only refuge we had to fly to, was England, where multitudes continued for many months, destitute of all manner of relief, but such as the charity of England afibrded, which indeed was very niunijicent, and never to be forgotten. "The Protestant clergy of Ireland being thus banished from Act for the their benefices, many of them accepted such small ecclesiastical P'.oiestimt ^ •* *- Irisli clcrcry". promotions In England as the benevolence of well disposed persons presented them with. But this being directly contrary to a statute in this kingdom, in the 17 and 18 of Chai-les II. cap. 10, intituled 'An act for disabling of spiritual persons from holding benefices or other ecclesiastical dignities. In England or Wales, and in Ireland at the same time,' the Protestant Irish clergy thought they could not be too secure in avoiding the penalty of the last mentioned act, and therefore applied them- selves to the parliament of England, and obtained an act in the first year of king William and queen Mary, e. 28, intituled G 82 APPENDIX, NO. III. A ct against commerce with France. Act for se- curity of tlie Protes- tants of Irtlantl. ' An act for the relief of the Protestant Irish clergy.' And this was the first attempt that was marie for binding Ireland by an act in England, since his majesty's happy accession to the throne of these kingdoms. " Afterwards, in the same year, and same session, chap, .34, there passed an act in England, prohibiting all trade and com- merce with France, both from England and Ireland. This also binds Ireland, but was during the heat of the war in that kingdom, when it was impossible to have a regular parliament therein, all being in the hands of the Irish papists. Neither do we complain of it, as hindering us from corx-espondlng with the king's enemies : for it is the duty of all good subjects to abstain from that. But as Scotland, though the king's subjects, claims an exemption from all laws but what they assent to in parliament, so we think this our right also. " When the banished laity of Ireland observed the clergy thus careful to secure their properties, and provide for the worst as well as they could in that juncture, when no other means could be taken by a regular parliament in Ireland ; they thought it likewise advisable for them to do something in relation to their concerns. And accordingly they obtained the act for the better security and relief of their ma/estjj's Protestant subjects of Ireland, 1 W. & M. ses. 2, c. 9, wherein king James's Irish parliament at Dublin, and all acts and attainders done by them, are declared void. 'Tis likewise thereby enacted, that no Protestant shall suffer any prejudice in his estate or office, by reason of his absence out of Ireland since December, 25, 1685, and that there should be a remittal of the king's quit- rents from the 25th o^ December, 1688, to the end of the war. Thus the laity thought themselves secure. " And we cannot wonder, that during the heat of a bloody war in this kingdom, when it was impossible to secure our estates and properties by a regular parliament of our own ; we should have recourse to this means, as the only which then could be had. We concluded with ourselves, that when we had obtained these acts from the parliament in England, we had gone a great way in securing the like acts to be passed in a regular parliament in Ireland, whenever it should please God to re- establish us in our own country : for we well knew our own constitution under Poyning's Law, that no act could pass in the parliament of Irekmd, till approved of by the king and privy council of England. And we knew likewise, that all the lords and others of his majesty's privy council in England are THE lUISH LE(ilSLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTKOVEHSY. 83 members of the lords or commons house of parliament there. And that by obtaining their assent to acts of parliament in favour of the Irish Protestants, they had in a manner pre- engaged their assent to the like bills when they should here- after come before them as privy counsellors, in order to be regularly transmitted to the parliament of Ireland, there to be passed into laws of that kingdom. But instead of all this, to meet Avith another construction of what was done herein, and to have it pleaded against us as a precedent of our submission, and absolute acquiescence in the jurisdiction of the parliaments of England over this kingdom, is what we complain of as an invasion (we humbly conceive) of that legislative right which our parliament of Ireland claims within this king'dom. " The next act passed in the parliament of England, binding Aotap- Ir eland, that is, for abrogating the oath of supremacy in Ire- r!ew oaths. land, and appointing other oaths, 3 and 4 William and Mari/, c. 2. To this the parliament convened at Dublin, anno 1692, under Lord Sydney, and that likewise anno 1695, under Lord Capel, paid an entire obedience. And by this (it is alleged) we have given up our right, if any we had, and for evei* acknowledged our subordination to the parliament of England! He goes on to deny the force of this reasoning, on tlie ,^^,f2on"' ground that this was a voluntary submission of our par- j^'e'^egisia- liament ; and that as to the laws passed in Westminster, nnieifmu they had been applied for by the Irish Protestants, and so acquired their binding force. His argument, however, must be said rather to halt upon this point. The Protestants of Ireland, at and after the sad and sanguinary civil war of 1688, were in some- thing of the condition of the horse, in the old fable of the contest between hiui and the stag. The horse, eager for victory over his opponent, besought the aid of man to obtain that end, and accordingly suffered man to bridle and mount him. But when the desired victory was accom- plished, he found that his ally relished too much his nevv' position of control to abandon it, and so remained his master. Even thus the Irisli Protestants called in and availed themselves of the aid of the British parliament ; a 2 84 APPENDIX, NO, in. But thelrish luition was not a con- l)ut when their objects were attained, and the contest ended iavourably to their views, they, like the horse, found their new ally a master, and quite as vainly sought to shake off the control they themselves had conceded. This, therefore, is the Aveakest part of Molyneux's case. The true argument for denying the precedents which he pftrty!^ vainly contests on the unstable grounds In the quotation just given from him, would have been, and is, that there was no national consent of Ireland to the parliamentary interference of England. The Protestants were but a portion of the nation. So far was the nation from concur- ring In and submitting to these invasions, that the parlia- ment of James the Second, in Ireland, which sat In 1689, passed a law declaring that Ireland was a " distinct king- dom, always governed by his Majesty and his predecessors, according to the ancient customs, laws, and statutes thereof; and that the parliament of Ireland alone could make laws to bind this kingdom." A clause of this act totally re- pealed Poynlng's law. The nation There is no doubt fliat that parliament of James the asserted its i i'lss^Vs" Second's, was the national legislature. It had the confi- leli'^and dence of the bulk of the nation — the Catholics. Several 1642, Protestants had seats in the Commons ; and in the Lords, as many peers, spiritual and temporal, of the Protestant religion, as chose to retain their allegiance to James, were freely admitted ; and not only In person, but their proxies Avere allowed to be taken. The determined and unquali- fied manner in which this body asserted the legislative independence of Ireland, had had Its example in the con- duct of the Irish parliament in 1641. Q| the 26th July in that year, they resolved as foUoAvs: — " It is voted upon question, nulla coniradicente, that the subjects of this H. M. kingdom, are a free people, and to be governed only according to the common law of" England, tnid THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVE IISY. 85 the statutes made and established bi/ parliament in this king- dom of Ireland, and according' to the lawful custom used in the same." — (Commons'' Journals, July 1641.^ Here is the full doctrine afterwards defended by Moly- neux — namely, the allowance of the common law of Eng- land in Ireland, as established under the original grants and charters whereby the British constitution was estab- lished in Ireland ; but a total denial of the force of any statute law, unless specially enacted by the Irish parlia- ment itself. In this parliament were both Protestants and Catholics, in about equal numbers, and it may on the Avhole, consi- dering the circumstances of the times, be said to have re- presented the nation and spoken the national voice. The kind of parliament called together the year after- wards, by the confederated Catholics in Kilkenny, which certainly spoke the sentiments of the bulk of the nation — viz., the Catholics — similarly asserted the legislative inde- pendence of their country. Althoun;h we do not admit the force of the reasoning Even a sec- ^ _ ^ tanan Insh by which Molyneux would seek to ffet out of the dilemma parliament J J O struggled in which the anti-nationality of his co-religionists in 1688- l^'JJdg}; g^. 90 placed him, by their acceptance of English legislation ; sumption. and although the sectarian and persecuting spirit of them- selves and their successors for nearly a century afterwards, plunged Ireland deeper and deeper in social miseries, whose effects deeply furrow the face of society at the present day, yet there is no doubt that the Protestant parliament of Irgland did, and is entitled to credit for that it did, take up again, even so early as in 1690, and with stubbornness and constancy did maintain the claim and right of Ireland to be bound only by laAvs passed at home. They, however, did not attempt so bold a flight as to resist the enforcement of Poyning's law. This had been 86 APPENDIX, NO. III. done by the national parliaments of which we have spoken ; but could only be done, as it had only been done, by means and force of the united voice of the nation — a condition of strength which the persecuting, penal law parliaments after 1690, did not and could not command. '• roynings \Ye liavc before mentioned the nature of the restrictions I^aw," as eu- extended'^ of " Poynlng's law," 10 Henry VII., c. 4, passed in 1495. Subsequent acts occasionally suspended or enforced it, until the 3rd and 4th year of Philip and Mary, which " explained" by rendering more stringent its provisions. Thus the right of the king, in his English council, to alter acts transmitted from Ireland Avas established, not to be again questioned ; as also, that not only Avere the bills, for the consideration and passing of which the parliament was specially called together, to be first considered by the king as above, but that no bills should be introduced through- out the entire session but such as should have been so first considered by him. This previous consideration included not only the power of alteration^ but even of total rejection of a bill, at his plea- sure and that of his English council. In the latter event, the Irish parliament could not, of course, proceed Avith the bill. Mistakes in \^ q rjrc noAV approachingj the notice of Avhat was done Tlie assertion i. l o otouriigiits jj^ 1782. Glorious as the occurrences of that time have ill llOl. been rightly called, tAvo mistakes Avere made by our legis- lature then. The first, in not insisting at once on a total and distinct renunciation, by the British parliament, of its usurped autliorlty to pass kuvs binding Ireland ; the second, by not totally abrogating Poyning's laAV, and returning to the old constitutional practice, (before the 10th Henry VII.,) of permitting no reference of their measures to the executive until passed in both houses, and then demanding the royal decision u[)on them, to be expressed in public. THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 87 We shall have to refer more minutely to the iiroceedino-s Biiifd.taih •' ^ » of tlie at- in 1782 presently, and so shall not delay further here, from tempts at our previous intention of ffivino; a few instances of what *''^" ^y ^^^ i- o o penal-law "we are ready to call patriotic stubbornness, on the part of ^'^ j^^i^™^^''* even the penal-law parliaments of Ireland. William's Irish parliament began their attempts at self- assertion, by the Commons rejecting, in 1690, a money bill, because it had not originated in their house. Shortly after, tliey proposed to re-enact specially for Ireland, four English statutes, which had been intended to bind Ireland without such re-enactment. It is true, that the heads of the bill for this purpose, having been, according to the forms of their slavery, transmitted to England, for consi- deration of the king in his council there, were rejected by him, at the instance of the English parliament, which not long after ordered Molyneux's " Case of Ireland" to be burnt by the common hangman. Still the attempt, though defeated, was practically a protest against England's usur- pation. In 1703, the Irish lords spiritedly and successfully resisted an attempt on the part of the upper house of Great Britain to interfere with their judicial authority, in the case of a decree made by them in favour of the Earl and Coimtess of Meath, dispossessed of certain lands in the county Tipperary, by order of the English lords in 1669, during the non-sitting of the Irish parliament. In 1709, the commons rejected a money-bill, becaujse it had been altered in England. In 1719, the Irish lords again asserted their appellant jurisdiction, in the case of a Mr. Annesley, dispossessed by their order of certain lands in tlie county Kildare. On this occasion they sent a long address to the king, (Geo. I.) complaining of the conduct of the English lords, both in 1699, and in this case, in Avhich the latter body had reversed attempts. 0» APXENDIX, NO. III. tlieir decision, and directed the barons of the Irish ex- chequer to order the sheriff of the county, Alexander Burrowes, to reinstate Mr. Annesley. The sheriff had spiritedly refused to obey their order, and demanded the protection of the Irish lords. Their address was, as "\\e have said, long, and went into much argument to prove their invaded rights. But it was met in England with the haughty contempt with which Irish claims have usually been there received — a contempt increased in this instance by the knowledge that there Avas nothing to fear from the indignation of the Irish par- liament — the parliament of a party dependent upon Eng- land for the upholding of their unchristian ascendancy. bow acfof '^^ ^^^ themselves for the future of the annoyances, even stop"hose° of humble remonstrances from such a quarter, the English government procured a law to be passed by their own parliament, entitled, " an act for the better securing the dependency of the kingdom of Ireland upon the crown of Great Britain," whereby, after declaring that the conduct of the Irish lords, in the two cases mentioned, was "against law," and denying their jurisdiction over the courts of justice in Ireland, it was further declared, " that the said kingdom of Ireland hath been, and of right ought to bcj subordinate and dependent upon the imperial crown of Great Britain — and that the king's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right oiujht to have, full power and authority, to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the kingdom and people of Ireland !" After which followed a provision annulling all proceed- ings of appeal before the Irish lords. ^ In 1729, the Irish parliament had the courage to refuse to vote the supplies for so long a period as twenty-one years, which they were then asked to do. 'IHE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTUOVEUb Y. 89 In 1751 they asserted their right of control over the surplus of the revenue. Some more extended notice than a mere mention of this digression. . The contest matter is not irrelevant to our subject; masmuch as an t>etweentiie \ , crown anil efficient control over the public revenue is so essential an the irisu i parnament attribute of a parliament worthy of the name. There is, too, g^i^g^fg^^P^^g in the compilation of which this is one of the appendices, revenue. a point of considerable importance alluded to, which would otherwise require special notice of this question, as to the disposal of Irish surplus revenue. We allude to the pecu- niary profligacy so unreservedly and unsparingly charged against parliaments in Ireland, by those who would fain have us continue to submit our interests to English legis- lation. It may, therefore, be well to dispose of the matter here, once for all. We will take even English authority on the subject. LoidNorth-s ^ -^ '' remarks on In the debate, in the English house of commons, (Monday, ^''^ subject. May 30th, 1785,) on the final consideration of the "com- mercial propositions" of that year. Lord North, in speak- ing of the Irish revenue, gave the house the history of a contest relative to the latter, between the crown and the Irish parliament in 1751. He said, that the gi-oundwork of the dispute had been laid immediately after the restora- tion of Charles the Second. The Cromwellian settlers at that time, in return for being secured, by Charles's act of settlement, and its explanation, in the forfeited lands, (of Charles's own adherents in Ireland,) settled upon the crown certain very important sources of revenue. " Those grants were so liberal, and so productive, that par- liament ceased to be necessary there ; and Charles the Se- cond never held another in Ireland during his whole reign. The Irish felC the error they had been guilty of in settling so great an income on the crown as rendered it independent of parliament ; and the hereditary revenue soon become an object 90 Ar-PENDIX, NO. III. of jealousy, not to say detestation, to the people. The debt contracted at the revolution afforded them an opportunity of proving this ; in providing for the payment of that debt, they laid on additional duties of customs and excise, but they would not impose them for more than two years, in order that the crown should be under the necessity of calling- the parliament together again, before the expiration of the two years : this policy had the desired effect, and the commons have persevered in it from that day to this, with a difference of late, that the session being annual, the grants of money are only from one year to another. The hereditary revenue had, since the revo- lution, been a subject of jealousy and terror to the parliament, insomuch that so far from endeavouring to improve it, they never missed an opportunity to throw charges upon it, to bear it down : however, in 1751, there was in the exchequer of Ire- land a surplus of £400,000 ; this, instead of being matter of joy, was the cause of general consternation throughout the kingdom : it was feared the crown was become so rich, that it could pay off the debt that was then on the nation, and having" no farther occasion for the annual grants, would call no more parliaments. There Avas a question in that year of disposing of this surplus of £400,000 ; and a bill was brought into par- liament for that purpose ; the preamble was to this effect : ' Whereas his Majesty has signified his consent, that the sur- plus now in the exchequer, &c., be disposed of,' &c. The zealous patriots took fire at the word consent, though it had been inserted in two other acts before that on similar occa- sions : they said the king had a right to give his assent to that bill as well as to any other ; but that he had no right to give his consent ; which latter term implied, that the sub- ject could not be so much as discussed, or made the sub- stance of a bill, without the previous consent of the crown, as in the case of private grants. This was the ground of a great struggle in the commons, where the most formidable opposition ever known in Ireland, was made against this word consent : the opposition triumphed ; the word consent was struck out of the bill, which dropped on that account, its friends having no regard for it after it had lost the magical word. The triumph of opposition set Ireland in a blaze ; nothing but bonfires and illuminations were to be seen from one end of the kingdom to the other, and the glorious 122 (the numbers upon the winning side upon the division) was the first toast at every table." THE HUSH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTUOVERSY. 91 On what folloAvecl, the author of that valuable work, '^''e i^iyHi- ' ' ness 01 tlie " The Commercial Restraints of Ireland Considered," J,VentI!aused (Dublin, 1779,) thus remarks :— EH-'"' ments of " 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 hus- bandly and other useful arts, were objects worthy of the re- presentatives of the people ; and had the faithfulness of the execution answered the goodness of the intention, the public would have had no reason to complain. Many of these grants prove the poverty of the country. There Avere not private stocks to carry on the projects of Individuals, nor funds suffi- cient for incorporating and supporting- companies, nor profits to be held 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 Avould 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 these useful undertakings, nor trade enough in the kingdom to make adequate return to the adveuturei's." The lavishness, therefore, of the expenditure of public strong cu-- , , , cumstancL'S money, by the Irish parliament, had Its origin, at any rate, of extenua- in a good and constitutional motive, and the encroaching and usurping spirit of the government Is far more deserv- ino; of blame. As to the application of those grants. If we consider the very small progress that sound Ideas on the subject of stimulants to Industry and commercial enterprise had made in any country at that time ; and also that the Irish par- liament was the parliament of a party, whose every evil tendency had been sedulously encouraged and fostered by England herself, for her OAvn base purposes ; and further, was one whose ancient constitution had, by several in- stances of most Iniquitous abuse of prerogative by the crown, (from tlic time of James the First, who created 92 APPENDIX, NO. III. 40 boroughs In one day, down to the monarch actually on the throne, George the Second,) been limited, grievously restricted, and corrupted. If we take these and other such circumstances Into consideration. Instead of exclaiming at the profligacy of the Irish parliament, rather Avonder at their making any attempt, however mistaken, to expend Aviiat would the money for the benefit of the country. Plad the really debt-incur- profllgatc English parliament — that parliament that sad- paviiament died SO many hundreds of millions upon their country, under sucii uudcr wlilch shc Is groaulug at the present day — ever stances ? fouud thcmselvcs In the same position of having a surplus to dispose of, the story would have been different ; and little thought would have been shewn for any interests but those of the individuals composing that parliament them- selves. We now return to our immediate subject. It will be seen, that although the Irish legislature (speaking of It as a perpetual body) had allowed Itself to be placed in a false position, and had further aided the views of England, by narrowing Its own base, and depriving itself of the firm support of a whole nation, still the ground of the consti- tution was not altogether abandoned ; but some struggle was made from time to time to prevent the encroachments of England from gaining the sanction of prescription and silent sufferance. In matters of finance, the struggle succeeded better than in other points. We have noted three instances already. A fourth occurred in 1769, when the Irish Commons rejected a money bill, " because it had originated in the Privy Council." A still more creditable achievement of theirs was their giving up the species of life-right, Avhich, from a corrup- tion of the constitution in Ireland, they had in the occu- pancy of their seats, (save in case of a dissolution by the THK IIIISII LBdlSLATIVE IN DEl'lCN DENCE CONTROVEKSV. king,) and passing a bill limiting the existence of a parlia- ment to the modern term of seven years. The English Privy Council altered this bill, by substituting eight years, hoping that the circumstance of its being at all meddled with by them, would make the Irish Commons reject the bill ; but the latter saw the trap, and had wisdom and patriotism enough to avoid it, and so passed the octennial bill of 1767. We now come to the time when the effort at self-vindication was renewed under better aus- pices, and, so far as the encroachments of the English par- liament were concerned, with complete though short-lived success. In the article on " Commercial Injustices," which the reader Avill find in another part of this appendix, it is shewn how the legislative restrictions on our commerce and manufactures gradually became more and more galling, and their Injurious operation even upon some English, as well as upon all Irish interests, more and more evident, until, in 1779, the moment of England's weakness, from her foreign disasters, was seized by the Irish parliament to bring her to a better sense, and make her consent to the removal of a considerable portion of those restrictions. It Is also mentioned, that the satisfaction of Ireland was extreme, and that England was so imprudent as by acts of her own to cause a very speedy diminution of that satis- faction. Had she (as common worldly prudence would have advised) endeavoured rather to foster the new-born feeling, it Is probable that the generous credulity of the Irish character might have suffered itself to be amused, and the national attention to be distracted from the imme- diate pursuit of legislative Independence, until such time as, by a dexterous handling of the old causes of intestine division, the unwonted union among Irishmen might be broken up, and the old policy of " divide et impera' speedily rendered once more triumphant. 93 94 APPENDIX, NO. III. « But, Instead of a warning being taken from the com- pelled concessions of 1779-80, the spirit of arrogant aggression was rather the more excited in England by what then occmTed. Ireland's gains at that time being considered little other than as so much taken from Eng- land, by a kind of successful rebellion. The interferences with the Irish mutiny act and sugar duties bill (referred to in the article mentioned) were therefore resolved upon, and this unwise proceeding gave a fresh and powerful impulse to the new disposition towards self-assertion that had manifested itself in Ireland. We have before alluded to the defects in what Avas done for Ireland in 1782. The right of England to legislate for Ireland was repudiated ; but the controlling power given by Poyning's act to the English Privy Council, was not really interfered with. As the best means of shewing not only the deeds of the time, but the opinions and arguments then used, we shall give extracts from the j)roceedings of the Irish parliament in that eventful year, after we notice the proceedings out of doors. The Irish Commons having, in April, 1780, protested against Ireland's being bound by English legislation, their protest was received with general joy and approbation throughout this country. The year 1781 passing away without any indication on the part of England of her dis- position to attend to this protest, the Irish will and deter- mination, on the subject to which it reierred, displayed itself early in the succeeding year, Avlth a formidable strength and unanimity. The grand juries everywhere declared for Irish legislative independence, and their exam- ple was imitated by the mercantile body, the bar, the volun- teer corps, &c., &c. The most celebrated of these meet- ings was that of the Dungannon Convention; a meeting, as it was described, of " The representatives of one hun- dred and forty-three Corps of Vohmtoer?," S:c., &g. THE IllISH LEGISLATIVE I N DETEN OENCE CONTROVERSY 95 DUNGANNON CONVENTION. At a Meeting of the Representatives of one hundred and forty-three Corps of Volunteers^ of the province of Ulster^ held at Dungannon, on Fridcaj, the I5th dag ofFehruarg, 1782, Colonel William Irvine In the Chair. Resolved unanimously — That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a Grievance. Resolved unanimously — That four members from each county of the province of Ulster, (eleven to be a quorum,) be and are hereby appointed a Committee 'till next general meeting, to act for the Volunteers Corps here represented, and, as occasion shall require, to call general meetings of the province ; viz., Lord Visct. Enniskillen Col. Mervyn Archdall Col. Wm. Irvine Col. Robert M'Clintock Col. John Ferguson Col. John Montgomery Col. Charles Leslie Col. Francis Lucas Cob Thomas M. Jones Col. James Hamilton Col. Andrew Thompson Lleut.-Col. C. Nesbitt Lleut.-Col. A. Stewart Major James Patterson Major Francis Dobbs Major James M'Clintock Major Charles Duffin Captain John Harvey Captain Robert Campbell Captain Joseph Pollock Captain Wad. Cunningham Captain Francis Evans Captain John Cope Captain James Dawson Captain James Atcheson Captain Daniel Eccles Captain Thomas Dickson Captain David Bell Captain John Coulston Captain Robert Black Rev. William Crawford Mr. Robert Thompson. Resolved (with two dissenting voices only, to this and the following Resolution) — That we hold the right of private judg- ment in matters of religion, to be equally sacred in others as in ourselves. Resolved therefore — That as men, and as Irishmen, as Christians, and as Protestants, we rejoice In the relaxation of the Penal Laws against our Roman Catholic fellow subjects ; 90 APPENDIX, NO. III. and that we conceive tlie measure to be frang-ht with the happiest consequences to the union and prosperity of the inhabitants of Ireland. Signed, Wm. Irvine, Chairman. In the Addendum to this article will be found many other documents of the same description, from the various bodies we have mentioned. Having now to deal with the proceedings in parliament we shall, as before intimated, proceed to give a sufficient abstract of the chief debates on legislative independence. IRISH DEBATES. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY, 22, 1782 VOL. I. PAGE 266. Mr. Grattan^s Motion for an Address to the King, upoii Irish Independence. Mr. Grattan — After the ample discussion in this house, of the great question of right, the 19th April, 1780, and the uni- versal reprobation of the assumption of the British parliament to bind this kingdom, then received, I had been silent on the subject, if that parliament, since that time, had not continued its tyrannical and imconstitutional assumption, by enacting laws to bind Ireland ; as also a proclamation in the Irish Gazette, where the execution of a British statute is enforced. Measures that evidently show that the British nation, so far from relinquishing the claim of vTSurped authority in this kingdom, have still the same spirit of making laws for us, which they keep alive by re- newing their claim on every occasion. These fresh instances of British usurpation, added to that disgraceful and unrepealed act, 6th of George I, makes it necessary at this time, for the parlia- ment of Ireland to come to an explanation concerning its pri- vileges, and the injured right of the nation. [Mr. G. here related several instances of British injustice to Ireland, from the act of Navigation to the present time.] And what are the boasted relaxations Britain has granted ? The first, in 1778, as contemptible in principle as in effect ; for after a bar of lawyers was brought to plead against Ireland in the English House of Commons, we were permitted to export everything ** except our manufactures. Their favour was an insult and aggravation to our misery. The second period w.as in 1779> THK IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 97 when government abdicated the defence of Ireland, and Ireland appeared in arms. The minifter now changed his tone — he glanced a temporally gleam of hope upon our shields — he gave us every thing, but kept the power of taking it back — he retained a Mutiny bill and a Post-Office act. The third period was a ministerial address of thanks, calculated to dissolve the union of the people — it had its effect ; when it was known that the strength of this house was dissolved, and that the glory of 1779 was no more, an order comes over to oppose on every occasion the latent claims of Ireland, to oppose an Irish Mutiny bill, to alter the Sugar bill. The reprobated measure of a perpetual Mutiny bill followed, but you have not done with it yet ; you have stabbed your country, and the wound is festering. Emboldened by your dissolution, English acts binding Ireland were passed last winter I am for honour- able tranquillity ; but when I see an administration unable to make a blow against an enemy, tyrannize over Ireland, I am bound to exert every power to oppose it. Ireland is in strength ; she has acquired that strength by the weakness of England ; for Ireland was saved when America was lost. When England conquered, Ireland was coerced ; when she was defeated, Ireland was relieved ; and when Char- lestown was taken, the Mutiny and Sugar bills were altered. How necessary, therefore, to assert the rights of Ireland ! Surely, you do not expect, like the Jews, redemption to come from heaven, if you do not help yourselves. THE ADDRESS. To assure his Majesty, that the people of Ireland are a free people. That the crown of Ireland is a distinct kingdom, with a parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof. To assure his Majesty, that by our fundamental laws and franchises — laws and franchises which we, on the part of this nation, do claim and challenge as her birth-right — the subjects of this kingdom cannot be bound, affected, or obliged by any legislature, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of this his Majesty's realm of Ireland ; nor is there any other body of men who have power or authority to make laws for the same. To assure his Majesty, that his Majesty's subjects of Ireland conceive, that in this privilege is contained the very essence of their liberty, and that they tender it as their lives, and accord- ingly have with one voice declared and protested against the 98 ' APPENDIX, NO. III. interposition of any other- parliament in the legisUition of this country. To assure his Majesty, that we have seen with concern the parliament of Great Britain advance to make law for Ireland ; and our anxiety is kept alive when we perceive the same parlia- ment still persist in that claim, as may appear by recent British acts, which aflPeet to bind Ireland, but to which the subjects of Ireland can pay no attention. To assure his Majesty, that next to our liberties, we value our connexion with Great Britain, on Avhich we conceive, at this time most particularly, the happiness of both kingdoms does depend, and which, as it is our most sincere wish, so shall it be our principal study to cultivate and render perpetual. That under this impression, we cannot suggest any means whereby such connection can be so much improved or strength- ened, as by a renunciation of the claim of the British parlia- ment to make law for Ireland : a claim useless for England, cruel to Ireland, and without any foundation in law. After which, the question being put on the Attorney- Gener- al's motion to adjourn the consideration of the address to the first of Augustj a division ensued, Ayes, ... ... 137 Noes, ... ... 68 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, l782 — VOL. I. PAGE 279. Mr. Flood, in a short but eloquent speech, stated the Rights of Ireland, and then moved — Resolved — that the members of this house are the only re- presentatives of the people of Ireland. Resolved — That the consent of the Commons is Indispensably necessary to render any statute binding. Rejected— 137 to 76. Recess, from lAth March to \Qth April, 1782. During this recess a total change took place in the British Ministry. Mr. Eden, Secretary to Lord Carlisle, went to London* with his Excellency's resignation of the lieutenancy of * He there suddenly moved In the House of Commons the Repeal of the 6 Geo. I., but had to withdraw it. TIIK IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 99 this kingdom. On the 14th of April, his Grace the Duke of Portland arrived in Dublin, and immediately took upon him the government of this kingdom. TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1782 VOL. I. PAGE 332. The Right Honoi'able John Hely Hutchinson, principal Secretary of State in Ireland, announced a message from the Lord Lieutenant, " that his grace had it in command to inform this house, that his Majesty being concerned to find discontents and jealousies prevailing among his loyal subjects of this coun- try, upon matters of great importance, recommends it to this house to take the same into their most serious consideration, in order to such a final adjustment as may give mutual satisfaction to his kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland." Mr. Hutch- inson said he could not avoid congratulating his country on this message, and begged to say a few words, not as an officer of the crown, but as a gentleman of the country. As to the right of this kingdom to be bound by no other laws but those made by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, he had always asserted it from the seat of judicature as a judge, and in this house as a representative of the people. He should be glad that every man in Great Britain understood what every man understood here, that the claim was not new, it was as old as the invasion of the right. vol. I. PAGE 239. Mr. Grattan then moved, which was resolved nem. con., that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, to return his Majesty the thanks of this house, for his most gracious message to this house, signified by his grace the Lord Lieutenant. To assure his Majesty of our unshaken attachment to his Majesty's person and government, and of our lively sense of his paternal care in thus taking the lead to administer content to his Majesty's subjects of Ireland. That thus encouraged by his royal interposition, we shall beg leave, with all duty and affection, to lay before his Majesty the cause of our discontents and jealousies ; to assure his Majesty, that his subjects of Ireland are a free people ; that the crown of Ireland is an imperial one, inseparably annexed to the crown of Great Britain, on which connection the inter- ests and happiness of both nations essentially depend ; but that H 2 100 APPENDIX, NO. III. the kingdom of Ireland is a distinct king-dom, with a parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof ; that there is no body of men competent to make laws to bind this nation, except the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; nor any other parlia- ment which hath any authority or power of any sort whatever in this country, save only the parliament of Ireland. To assure his Majesty that we humbly conceive, that in this right the very essence of our liberties exists — a right which we, on the part of all the people of Ireland, do claim as their birthright, and which we cannot yield but with our lives. To assure his Majesty that we have seen with concern cer- tain claims advanced by the parliament of Great Britain, in an act entitled, "an act for the better securing the dependency of Ireland ;" an act containing matters entirely irreconcilable to the fundamental rights of this nation. That we conceive this act, and the claims it advances, to be the great and principal cause of the discontents and jealousies of this kingdom. To assure his Majesty that his Majesty's commons of Ire- land do most sincerely wish that all bills which become law in Ireland, should receive the approbation of his Majesty, under the great seal of Britain ; but that yet we do consider the prac- tice of suppressing our bills in the councils, or altering the same any where, to be another just cause of discontent and jealousy. To assure his Majesty that an act entitled, "an act for the better accommodation of his Majesty's forces," being unlimited in its duration, and defective in other instances, but pased in that shape from the particular circumstances of the times, is another just cause of discontent and jealousy in this kingdom. That we have submitted these principal causes of discontent and jealousy in Ireland, and remain in humble expectation of redress. That we have the greatest reliance on his Majesty's wisdom, the most sanguine expectations from his virtuous choice of a chief governor, and great confidence in the wise, auspicious, and constitutional councils, which we see, with satisfaction, his Majesty has adopted. That we have moreover a high sense and veneration for the British character, and do therefore conceive that the proceed- ings in this country, founded as they are in right, and tem- pered by duty, must have excited the approbation and esteem, instead of wounding the pride of the British nation. And we beg leave to assure his Majesty, that we are the THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTIIOVEUSY. 101 more confirmed In this hope, inasmuch as the people of this kingdom have never expressed a desire to share the freedom of England, witliout declaring a determination to share her fate likewise, standing and falling with the British nation. Those resolutions passed nem. con. SATURDAY, MAY 4, 1782 VOL. I. PAGE 352-4. The Attorney-General (Mr.ScoTT) said, amongst other things, he did, consequently, as a lawyer, a faithful servant to the crown, a well-wisher to both countries, and an honest Irishman, in the most unqualified, unlimited, and explicit manner, declare his opinion — That Great Britain has no right whatsoever to hind this country/ hy any law. If the tenure of his office was thought to he the supporting of opinions or doctrines injurious to the undoubted rights of Ireland, he held it to be an infamous tenure ; and if the parliament of Great Britain were determined to be lords of Ireland, he had no intention to be their villain, in contributing to it. MONDAY, MAY 27, 1782 VOL. I. PAGE 354, Speech of the Duke of Portland, Lord Lieutenant. My Lords and Gentlemen — It gives me the utmost satisfac- tion to find myself enabled, by the magnanimity of the king, and the wisdom of the parliament of Great Britain, to assure you, that Immediate attention has been paid to your representa- tions, and that the British legislature have concurred in a resolution to remove the causes of your discontents and jealousies, and are united in a desire to gratify every wish expressed in your late addresses to the throne These benevolent intentions of his Majesty, and the willingness of his parliament of Great Britain to second his gracious purposes, are unaccompanied by any stipulation or condition whatever. The good faith, the generosity, the honor of this nation, afford them the surest pledge of a corresponding disposition on your part to promote and perpetuate the harmony, the stability, and the glory of the empire. The things so graciously offered by our Sovereign, are the modification of Poyning's law, and not only the abridgment of the Mutiny bill, in point of duration, but the formation of 102 APPENDIX, NO. ni. it on the model of the English Mutiny bill, and prefacing it with a declaration of right. After the speech was read, Mr. Grattaw called the attention of the house to the candid manner in which the address had been answered by the Lord Lieutenant. As Great Britain and her ministers have unconditionally agreed to the demands of Ireland, I think the spirit of the nation is called upon to make an unconditional grant to England. The sea is the element which nature points as the scene of British glory. It is there we can most effectually assist her. Twenty thousand seamen would be a noble support ; and we who have been squandering the public money in all the waste of blind extravagance, cannot surely now deem £100,000 too large a sum, when applied to the common defence of the empire. The sum is trifling, but the assistance of 20,000 Irishmen would be great ; and gentlemen will now, when they retire to their different counties, have a full opportunity of assisting to raise those men, and of manifesting their zeal for the common cause of Great Britain and Ireland. Mr. Grattan then moved an address, which, after reciting the various points claimed and conceded, went on — " That gratified in those particulars, we do assure his Ma- jesty, that no constitutional question between the two nations will any longer exist, which can interrupt their harmony, and that Great Britain, as she has approved of our firmness, so may she rely on our affection. " That we remember and do repeat our determination, to stand and fall with the British nation." The Recorder said, he rose to express his gratitude at the present event. The address did the mover honor, and had his concurrence in every point but one. THURSDAY, JUNE 6tH, 1782 VOL. I. PAGE 279. In committee on the Bill for modifying Poyning's law, Friday, June 1th', 1782. Mr. Flood said, I oppose this bill, because that under it, it is scarcely possible for parliament to sit at all. By this bill the lord lieutenant and council are required to certify to Eng- land such bills, and no other, as have passed both houses of parliament here. By Poyning's law, which remains unrepealed, THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 103 parliament cannot sit without a license from his Majesty. The privy council cannot apply for a license till they have some bill I'eady to certify. This may, therefore, be called an act to prevent the meeting of parliaments. I hope this session may be long-, for when this bill passes it may never be succeeded by another. This bill was proposed twenty years ago, when parliament was weak and impotent; it was then rejected with disdain; and will you now — when you have your constitution in your hands — WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR CONSTITUTION IN YOUR ARMS will yOU now accept of such a humiliating condition, and disgrace the cause of your country by such a pitiful expedient. For my own part, though I have always held that Poyning's law, properly explained according to its true construction, was a sufficient guard to our constitution, yet I am willing to give up my private opinion. Let the constitution be settled — I care not by whom. I say the Privy Council have now a power of originating bills. Is it contradicted? — it ought to be taken away — it is not. Suppose then, an arbitrary chief governor, and a venal parlia- ment, (if no such thing ever existed, then I am wrong in the supposition,) suppose they should say, our power of originating bills is not taken away, yours is. And suppose, by an evasion, not very uncommon, they should say, though our power of transmitting any hills that have not passed both houses Is taken away, yet our power of transmitting heads of bills is not — it is only bills. To what end then have ye struggled, if you leave your constitution liable to greater injuries than it sustained before. It has been objected, that a repeal of Poyning's law would be going beyond the terms of the address, but this is not logic neither, for the bill at present before us, does Itself outstep the modesty of the address. Some men, it Is true, may do anything, whilst others are circumscribed in very narrow limits. But will you not restore your constitution to wliat it was before Poyning's law ? Your BILLS were transmitted to the king, engrossed on parchment under the gi"eat seal of Ireland, and the royal assent or dissent was given to them iii open parliament. Indeed, when you had given up your dignity, wrote them on paper, and called them by the pitiful name of heads of bills, It is no wonder they should drop or be smothered in the English council, or any where else. But now that you are asserting your constitution, and dccUiring that your bills go for\vard to the 104 APPENDIX, NO. III. king from both houses, under the great seal of Ireland, will you not also say that they shall also come back from the king, and be publicly negatived or approved. I will now propose an amendment to the bill, by inserting after the word " Whereas," the words " doubts have arisen on the construction of the law commonly called Poyning's law, and of the 3rd and 4th of Philip and Mary, explanatory thereof: Be it enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and com- mons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the said law of Foynings, and the said 3rd and 4th Philip and Mary, be and stand repealed, save only as follows, that is to say, be it enacted, that no parliament shall be holden in this kingdom, until a license for that purpose be had and obtained from his Majesty, his heirs and successors, under the great seal of Great Britain; "And that all bills, considerations, causes, ordinances, tenors, and provisions of either or both houses of parliament, shall be of right certified to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, UU' altered, under the great seal of Ireland, by the lord lieutenant, or the chief governor or governors, and council of this king- dom for the time being, and that such bills, and no others, being returned unaltered, under the great seal of Great Britain, shall be capable of receiving the royal assent or dissent in par- liament, according to his majesty's disposition, either for giving his assent or dissent to the same respectively," And now, Mr. Speaker, if I have a feeling in the inmost pulse in my heart, it is that which tells me that if, after twenty years service, I should pass this question by negligently, I should be a base betrayer of ray country — it is that which tells me that the whole earth does not contain a bribe sufficient to make me trifle with the liberties of this land. I do, therefore, wish to subscribe my name to what I now propose, to have them handed down together to posterity, that posterity may know that there was, at least, one man, who disapproved of the temporising bill now before the house, a bill that future parliaments, if they have the power, will reform — if they have not, with tears will DEPLORE Mr. Yelverton declared, that when he introduced the bill, it was to take away every grievance which had been complained of: in his own apprehension that end was answered. He had no objections, however, to terms more amplified. He then moved, that to prevent delays in the summoning of parliaments, THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 105 "be it further enacted, that no bill shall be certified into Great Britain, as a cause or consideration for holding a parliament in this kingdom, although no such bill shall have been certified previous to the meeting thereof." Mr. Flood — It has been said, that the word Repeal would alarm England, and therefore this mode of altering the law of Poynings by implication is adopted. Is this a time to fear to speak out in fair and open language, after our Sovereign has invited us to state our grievances with a certainty of redress. Have we not demanded a repeal of that law (the 6th of Geo. I.) by which England pretended to bind this country ; and shall we now fear to regulate our own constitution, and leave it in a monstrous chaos of things declared and things implied. We had two hundred years of experience of the evil of leaving a possibility of infringing the constitution — other StraJ^ords may arise, it is our business to guard against them. The octennial bill was altered, yet you passed it. And what say you to the mutiny bill, in which you were the suicides of your own constitution — ^just at the moment you had accomplished your own purpose and the desires of the nation, you pitifully abandoned all, and with repenting hand abolished your own works. I am convinced that nothing will content Ireland but a constitution similar to that of England. You might as well say, that having for one hundred years been deprived of the final judication, it ought not now be restored. But I know no length of time that can run against the constitution. The question being at length put, that the bill do pass, with Mr. Yelverton's amendment, was agreed to without a (livisiori. TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1782 VOL. 1, PAGE 406. Further Debate on the Bill Jor Repealing 6 Geo. I. Mr. Flood said — Nothing ever was more judicious than the conduct of Great Britain on this occasion. She was so embar- rassed abroad, and you were so strong at home, that she could not deny the repeal of the declaratory law. Yet it must ever be her wish to retain the principle of it, because it is the prin- ciple of power, which no nation has ever relinquished while it could maintain it. What then has she done ? By seeming to yield unconditionally to you, she seized on the generous credu- 106 APPENDIX, NO. III. lity of your nature, and took full advantage of a change in her own administration. Her first step was bold, in order to strike your imaginations with something that seemed to be decisive. She resolved that the declaratory law ought to be repealed. She did not say, however, that it ought to be repealed, as having been a false and erroneous declaration of law. Far from it; not a man in the British parliament held such an idea. The very mover and seconder of the resolution said the contrary. It is the first principle of law, that a declaratory act only declares the law to be what it was before — that is to say, that it only declares, and that it does not alter the law. What follows ? That as making a declaratory act does not alter law, so neither can the mere unmaking of such an act alter law ; or in other words, it follows, that if a declaratory act is not pro- nounced to have been an erroneous declaration of law, the bare repeal of it can do no other than leave the law in that state in which the declaratory act did declare it to have been before such declaratory act passed. It was on this question, as to whether the English act, 6th Geo. I. should simply be repealed, or an entire renun- ciation be demanded from England, of her assumption to legislate for Ireland, that Mr. Grattan made his great and only mistake. He estimated the intentions of Eng- land too generously, and his opinions prevailed with the house. However, that very year was not over, Avlien Avhat the Irish parliament in their moderation would not ask, the English parliament in their fear, set about conceding. On the 19th December, 1782, notice was taken in the latter body of an Irish cause having been decided in the King's Bench in England. Mr. Secretary Townshend answered that it Avas an old cause — eighteen j^^ears in that court — and that there would be no more. Next day it was declared that the lord lieutenant had written from Ireland (in a fright) on the subject, and the secretary gave notice for the 22nd of January, 1783, that he would bring in a bill, the object of Avhich he thus stated, when bringing it forward : — THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDErENDENCE CONTKOVEUSY. 107 To lull all jealousies — to lay all doubts and disputes about constitutional points fast asleep, so that they might never wake ag'ain — was the object he had in view in the motion he was going to make ; and he hoped that Ireland would rest satisfied, that " in no change of affairs would England ever retract that faith, which in his opinion she had pledged, when she repealed the 6 Geo. I., fully to surrender all legislative and judicial authority over Ireland." Late in the debate a Mr. Macdonald asked, was there any supposable case wherein, after the passing of this bill, the legislature of Great Britain could exercise a jurisdic- tion over Ireland. Mr. Secretary Townshend said there was none ; that the idea Avas given up in all cases whatsoever. The following was the title of the bill, and subjoined is its chief clause: — 23 Geo. III. Cap. 28. An act for preventing and removing all doubts which have arisen or might arise, concerning the exclusive rights of the parliament and courts of Ireland in matters of legislation and judicature, and to prevent appeals being heard in Great Britain. Be it enacted — That the right claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by his Majesty and the parliament of that kingdom in all cases whatever, and to have all actions and suits at law or in equity which may be instituted in that kingdom, decided in his Majesty's courts \\veYe;\n, Jinally and without appeal from thence, shall be and is hereby declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be questioned or questionable. The words "for ever" in the foregoing clause, were on special motion adopted instead of" "/or the future" being considered more comprehensive and decided. The only subsisting restrictions on Irish legislative in- dependence, after the passing of the measures of 1782 and 1783, were those under what Avas called the ^^modification ' 108 APPENDIX, NO. III. of Poyning's law. The author of " Collectanea Politica " thus describes them : — It is true, that both Lords and Commons have attempted, and gained an approach towards their ancient rights of begin- ing bills, not in that name, but under the name of heads of hills, to be transmitted to the council ; but as the council are the first beginners of acts of parliament, they have assumed a power of modelling these also. The legislature of Ireland is, therefore, very complicated. First, the Privy Council of Ire- land, who, though they may take the hint from the Lords or Commons, frame the bill ; next, the King and council of Eng- land, who have a power of alteration, and really make it a bill unalterable, by sending it under the great seal of England ; then the two Houses of Lords and Commons, who must agree in the whole, or reject the whole ; and, if it passes all these, it is presented to the king for his assent ; which, indeed, is but nominal, as it was before obtained. This was the state of things up to the Union. That measure, it is needless to say, put an end to our legislative independence. Fraud, force, perjury, corruption, and bloodshed were the means by which the Union was effected — and they have, one or other, been constantly employed in its maintainance ever since. All these iniqui- tous means are now, however, fast failing and breaking down; and the Irish popular mind is becoming every day more and more united, concentrated, and irresistible in its mighty but peaceful onward movement towards the glorious achievement of the full measure of our ancient liberties and rights. We now subjoin the Addendum spoken of at page 96. THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 109 ADDENDUM. DUBLIN VOLUNTEERS. " At a Meeting of the Corps of the Dublin Volunteers^ at the Eagle, Eustace-street, on Friday, the \st March, 1782, " His grace the Duke of Leinstek in the Chair. " Resolved — That Great Britain and Ireland are, and ought to be, inseparably connected, by being under the dominion of the same King, and enjoying equal liberty and similar consti- tutions. " That it is the duty of every good citizen, to maintain the connexion of the two countries, and the freedom and indepen- dence of this kingdom. " That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland only, are competent to make laws binding the subjects of this realm ; and that we will not obey, or give operation to any laws, save only those enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, whose rights and privileges, jointly and severally, we are deter- mined to support with our lives and fortunes. " Signed by order, "John Williams, Secretary." LAWYERS' CORPS, 28th FEBRUARY, 1782. " Col. Edward Westby in the Chair. " Resolved unanimously — That the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Signed by order, "Samuel Adams, Secretary." SLANE VOLUNTEERS. " At a Meeting of the Corps of Volunteers, of the Barony of Slane, County Meath, assembled on their Parade, Srd March, 1782, tlie following Resolution was unanimously agreed to — 110 APPENDIX, NO. III. " Resolved — That no power on earth can make laws to bhid the people of this land, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. " Signed by order, "Fkancis Adams, Secretary." WATERFORD VOLUNTEERS. " Jit a full Meetirifj of the different Volunteer Corps of the City of Waterford, the Cavalry, Artillery, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, assembled by public notice, on the 6rd day of March, 1782, " Captain Hannibal Wm. Dobbvn in the Chair. " Resolved unanimously — That we conceive that the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom." Westmeath resolutions, signed by the Sheriff, William Fetherstone, Esq. ; by the Foreman of the Grand Jury, CuTHBERT Fetherstone, Esq. ; by Lord Delvin, the father of the present unhappy Lord Westmeath ; and by the leading Protestant gentry of the county — « WESTMEATH GRAND JURY. " We, the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of Westmeath, at a General Assizes held at Mullingar, in and for said County, on Monday, the 4th day of March, 1782, " Resolved unanimously — That the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " That the numerous absentees of this kingdom, from the immense sums annually remitted to them, are highly detrimental, and very much contribute to the impoverishing the nation — and that the above evil is every day increasing, even to an alarming degree. *' That a tax upon absentees would very much contribute to THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTIIOVERSY. Ill the prosperity, honour, and happiness of this kingdom, and that the said tax should be appropriated to national purposes. '' That we consider the right of private judgment in matters of religion, to be equally sacred in others as in ourselves. " That we rejoice in the relaxation of the penal laws against our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; and that we conceive it to be a measure fraught with the happiest consequences to the union and prosperity of the inhabitants of Ireland." The following pithy resolutions were passed by the INDEPENDENT DUBLIN VOLUNTEERS. " At a quarterly Meeting of the Corps of Independent Dublin Volunteers, held at the Eagle, in Eustace-street, Dublin, on Tuesday, 5th March, 1782, " Major Cannier in the Chair. *' Whereas, the people of Ireland are a free people, with a parliament of their own, to whose authority alone they are sub- ject : now we, the Corps of Independent Dublin Volunteers, associated for the defence of the realm, the law, and the consti- tution, do agree unanimously to the following resolutions, for the rule of our conduct, viz. — • " Resolved — That we do not acknowledge the jurisdiction of any parliament, save only the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland. " Resolved — That we will in every capacity, oppose the exe- cution of any statute imposed on us by the pretended authority of the British parliament. " Resolved — That we will support with our lives and fortunes the parliament of Ireland, in declaring and asserting its rights. " Signed by order, '* S. Cannier, Chairman." This is the resolution of a Meeting of the entire County of Meath, duly convened by the High Sheriff, and at which he presided. " COUNTY OF MEATH. " At a Meeting of the Grand Jury and Freeholders of the County of Meath, at Trim, convened by the Sheriff, on Thursday the 7th March, 17 S2, the folloiving Resolution was unanimously agreed to : — 112 APPENDIX, NO. III. " Resolved — That no power on earth can make laws to bind the people of this land, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. '< Ham. Georges, Sheriff" We next give an extract from the resolutions passed at Bel- fast, on the 7th of March, 1782. '' TOWN HOUSE, BELFAST, March 7th, 1782. " At a very numerous Meeting of the Inhabitants^ called by a public notice, dated 4th inst. and signed by twenty- Jive of the principal Inhabitants^ " Thomas Sinclair, Esq. in the Chair. " Resolved unanimously — That if any Irishman has been or shall be hardy enough to assert, directly or indirectly, that any body of men, other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland had, have, or ought to have, a right to make laws to bind this realm, in any case whatsoever, every such man insults the majesty of the king of Ireland, the dignity of its parlia- ment, and the whole body of its people ; is an enemy to this kingdom, and ought to be reprobated as such, by every friend of Ireland. " Resolved unanimously — That it be, and it is hereby most earnestly recommended to all the inhabitants of this province, to assemble in their several towns and parishes, to deliberate on those matters, and, in case they shall approve thereof, to enter into similar associations, as we are fully convinced that nothing is now wanting to establish and secure the freedom and prosperity of Ireland, but the avowed union of its people. " Thomas Sinclair, Chairman." "COUNTY OF WATERFORD. " At a Meeting of the Grand Jury of said County, at the General Assizes, held at Blachfryars, in said County, the Sth day of March, 1782, " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 113 are the only power competent to make laws to bind this king- dom. " By order of the Grand Jury, " John Beresford, Foreman." The next is from Connaught. "GORT LIGHT DRAGOONS. " At a full meeting of the Gort Light Dragoons^ the 9th March, 1782, pursuant to notice, " Major James Galbraith in the Chair, '* Resolved — That it is now very expedient, and we conceive the people of this country are called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Signed by order, " James O'Flanagan, Secretary." The next is from Wexford. " WEXFORD INDEPENDENTS. " At a full meeting of the Wexford Independent Corps, on Friday, the 8th March, 1782, " Resolved unanimously — That we conceive that the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Wm. Hughes, Adjutant." We return again to " ULSTER. " At a meeting of the True Blue Volunteers of London- derry, at the Toum Hall, on Monday, the Wth of March, 1782, the following Resolutions were agreed to : " Captain William Lecky in the Chair : " Resolved unanimously — That we conceive that the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, I 114 APPENDIX, NO. III. Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Resolved unanimously — That if any Irishman has been, or shall be, hardly enough to assert, that any body of men other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, had, have, or ought to have, a right to make laws to bind this realm, in any ease whatsoever, every such man insults the Majesty of the King of Ireland, the dignity of its parliament, and the whole body of its people ; is an enemy to this kingdom, and ought to be reprobated as such, by every friend of Ireland. " William Lecky, Chairman." The next extract is from a meeting in Galway. "CLANRICARDE CAVALRY. *' At a ineeting of the Clanricarde Cavalry, at LoughreUy the I2th day of March, 1782, ♦' Colonel Petek Daly in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That we conceive that the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Signed by order, " Charles Kelly, Sec." Resolutions signed by Hopton Scott, Esq., the High Sheriff, by the Honourable John Stratford, the Foreman, Honourable Benjamin O'Neill Stratford, Sir James Tynte, Bart., and by the rest of the Grand Jury of the "COUNTY OF WICKLOW. " We, the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of IVicklow, at a General Assizes held at Wicklow, in and for said County, on Tuesday the \2th day of March, ■' 1782, " Honourable John Stratford in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland, are the only constitutional power competent to bind this kingdom," THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 115 "COUNTY OF CAVAN. " At a meeting at large of the County of Cavan, convened at the Requisition of the Hir/h Sheriff, at Cavan, on Wednesday, March the \Zth, 1782, the followiiig Decla- ration laas unanimously agreed to : " We declare, that we will pay obedience to those laws only, which are made by our own legislature, the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; as the very terms of our original com- pact with Great Britain are, that we shall possess and exercise the full enjoyment of the British Constitution. As external greatness and constitutional extension were the objects of Great Britain in that compact ; as external security and con- stitutional liberty were the objects of Ireland ; — whatever leads to separation on the part of the latter, or infringement on the part of the former, is a violation to both. " As we feel ourselves, equally with Great Britain, bound by every treaty of the King, we feel ourselves, equally with Great Britain, entitled to every benefit derived from them. We therefore claim, as free and equal advantages of trade and commerce with every nation, as Great Britain herself enjoys; and we pledge ourselves to our country and to each other, to exert every constitutional means to support this our solemn declaration. " Signed by order, " George Montgomery, Chairman." '' GOLDSMITHS' CORPS, ** Commanded by the Right Hon. the Earl of Charlemont, " Associated in defence of this Kingdom, and its natural Rights, have unanimously agreed to the folloioing Reso- lutions : " Resolved — That we will not acknowledge the jurisdiction of any parliament, save only the Kmg, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we will, in every capacity, support them with our lives and fortunes, in asserting our rights, against any pre- tended authority of the British parliament. " Signed by order, "J. Hardy, Secretary." I 2 116 APPENDIX, NO. III. "CONNAUGHT VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of the Delegates from 59 Volunteer Corps of the Province of Connaught, at Ballinasloe, on Friday the 15th of March, 1782, " The Earl of Clanricarde in the Chair, " The following Resolutions were entered into unanimously : " Resolved — That no power on earth has a right to make laws to bind this kingdom, except the King, I>ords, and Com- mons of Ireland ; and that we will resist with our lives and fortunes, the execution of any other laws ; as we consider, to be governed by a foreign legislature, over which we have no controul — absolute slavery. " Resolved — That we are perfectly convinced, there is not a man in this kingdom, who entertains a wish so ruinous to the prosperity of both nations ; on the contrary, we declare for our- selves, and we have the fullest conviction of its being the universal sentiment of the People of Ireland, that the present measures are intended to remove every object of jealousy, that we may clasp our sister nation to our bosom, and cement an indissoluble union between us ; — attached to her by every tie of interest and affection that cements nations, surrounded as she is by a host of enemies, we are resolved to share her liberty and share her fate. " Signed by order, "James Joice, Secretary." "COUNTY OF LEITRIM. " At a meeting of the Freeholders of the County of Leitrim, at Carrick~on- Shannon, convened by the High- Sheriff of said County, on Saturday the I6th of March, 1782, the following Resolution was unanimously agreed to : " Resolved unanimously — That we conceive that the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Signed, " Patrick Cullen, SheriflF." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 117 COUNTY OF KILDARE— ATHY VOLUNTEERS. "At a full meeting of the Athy Volunteers^ March 17 th, 1782, " Captain Daker in the Chair, " The following Resolution was unanimously agreed to : *' Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons, of Ire- land, ONLY, are competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Signed by order, " Thomas Hayes, Secretary." "COUNTY WATERFORD MEETING. " At a numerous meeting of the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Waterford, assembled at Dun- garvan, on Monday, the \Qth of March, 1782, pursuant to notice given by the High Sheriff for that purpose, " Robert Uniacke, Esq. High Sheriff, in the Chair, " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ire- land, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Robert Uniacke, Sheriff." Let Irishmen see how the County of Fermanagh spoke out in those days. ''COUNTY FERMANAGH GRAND JURY. " We, the Grand Jury of the County of Fermanagh, being constitutionally assembled at the present Assizes, held for the county of Fermanagh, at EnnisMllen, this \^th day of March, 1782, think ourselves called upon at this inter- esting moment to make our solemn declarations relative to the rights and liberties of Ireland: " We pledge ourselves to this our country, that we never will pay obedience to any law, made, or to be made, to bind Ireland, except those laws which are and shall be made by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. " Signed by order, " Arthur Cole Hamilton, Foreman." 118 APPENDIX, NO. III. «'LURGAN, MARCH 18th, 1782. " At a meeting of the Inhabitants of the Toxon of Lurgan and its neighbourhood^ convened by public notice at the Church, " Adam Cuppage, Esq. in the Chair, " The following Resolutions were unanimously entered into : " First — That the present alarming' crisis calls on every man publicly and unequivocally to declare his sentiments relative to the rights of this kingdom. " Second — That we are sensible of our interests being inse- parable from those of Great Britain ; but that we do not hold ourselves bound by, or amenable to any statutes, except such as are enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, in parliament assembled. " Signed by order, " Richard Eustace, Secretary." ^^At a general Meeting of the Freemen and Freeholders of the City of Dublin, convened by the High Sheriffs, at the Tholsel, on Tuesday the \^th March, 1782, "James Campbell and David Dick, Esqrs. in the Chair, " The following Address was unanimously agreed to : " To Sir Samuel Bradstreet, Bart, and Travers Hartley, Esq., Representatives in parliament for the city of Dublin. " Gentlemen, " As men justly entitled to, and firmly resolved to obtain a free constitution, we require you, our trustees, to exert your- selves in the most strenuous manner, to procure an unequivocal declaration — that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this country. " And we solemnly pledge ourselves to you and to our country, that we will support the representatives of the people at the risk of our lives and fortunes, in every constitutional measure which may be pursued for the attainment of this great THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 119 national object. Be assured, gentlemen, that your zeal upon this occasion, will insure you a continuance of our esteem and regai'd. " James Campbell, ) oi, -cc " ,, T^ T-t r Sheritts. " David Dick, J '' SKREEN VOLUNTEERS. " Skreen Corps of Dragoons, or Mounted Infantry — "March 20th, 1782. " Colonel J. Dillon in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That no power on earth is com- petent to make laws to bind Ireland, except the King-, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we will in every instance uniformly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statutes or laws, except such as are made by the authority above men- tioned. *' Signed by order, " John Wilkinson, Secretary." "BALTINGLASS MEETING. " At a meeting of Delegates assembled at Baltinglass, pur- suant to public notice, on the 20th March, 1782, " The Earl of Aldborough in the Chair, " The following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to: " Resolved — That we are determined to resist with our lives and fortunes, the operation of any law that is dictated by a foreign legislature, as we know, and will acknowledge no other but that of the King of Great Britain, and the Lords and Commons of Ireland. " That being united to the imperial crown of Great Britain, and particularly with her in every calamitous event, so likewise we consider ourselves entitled to share in every fortuitous cir- cumstance or prosperity that can attend her — to the same rights and freedom of trade, without which jealousies must ever subsist between the sister kingdoms ; for unless our con- stitution stands on the same basis, it is impossible our interests should, as we sincerely wish, be inseparably connected and permanent. *< Aldborough, Chairman." 120 APPENDIX, NO. III. "BIRR MEETING. " At a meeting of Delegates from seventeen Corps of Vo- lunteers, assembled at Birr, the '20th March, 1782, " Sir Wm. Parsons, Baronet, in the Chair, " Resolved — That Ireland is an independent kingdom, and can only be bound by laws enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. " Signed by order, "Thomas Berry, Secretary.'* "MEATH VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of Delegates from the Volunteer Corps of the County of Meath, at Trim, March "iXst, 1782, con- vened at the requisition of Colonels Rowley and Lowther, who were both present, " The Earl of Mornington in the Chair, " Resolved — That we will in every capacity and situation of life, co-operate with our fellow-citizens and fellow-soldiers, the Ulster Volunteers, assembled at Dungannon, in all constitu- tional efforts towards a redress of the grievances, and an estab- lishment of the rights of Ireland. " Resolved — That a common participation in every advantage of the British constitution, being not only the unalienable right of Ireland, but also the sole tie which can attach the interests and affections of this kingdom to Great Britain, it were equally injurious to the generosity and wisdom of the British cha- racter, to suppose that our sister country can look with a jealous eye upon that truly constitutional spirit, which now so happily pervades Ireland ; a spirit which, by promoting a tem- perate and seasonable assertion of the freedom of this kingdom, tends to secure the union, strength, and honorable tranquillity of the British empire. " Mornington, Chairman." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 121 " KILKENNY INDEPENDENTS. " At a meeting of the Jive companies of Kilkenny Indepen- dents^ held the 22nd day of March, 1782, " Major Roche in the Chair, " The following Jlesolutions were unanimously agreed to, and ordered to he published : " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ire- land, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Resolved — That we do solemnly pledge ourselves to sup- port this exclusive right of the parliament of Ireland, with our lives and fortunes. " Resolved — That Great Britain and Ireland are and ought to be inseparably connected, by being under the dominion of the same king, and enjoying equal liberty and similar consti- tutions. " Signed by order, "Val. Coghlan, Secretary." "MONAGHAN. "At a meeting of the Inhabitants of the Town and neigh- bourhood of Monaghan, convened by public notice, signed by twenty-eight of the principal inhabitants, March 22nd, 1782, " Mr. FoRSTER in the Chair, " Resolved — That we do most heartily approve of the reso- lutions of the Volunteer Delegates, assembled at Dungannon, the 15th of February last, particularly that which declares that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. To no other laws will we submit, and it is with astonishment we behold our sister kingdom retaining claims of a contrary ten- dency — claims which are, and must be, useless to her, and insulting to us. " Wm. Forster." 122 APPENDIX, NO. III. COUNTY OF TYRONE. " At a meeting of the Nobility^ Representatives, Free- holders, and Inhabitants of the County Tyrone, at Omagh, convened by the Sheriff, the 227id of March, 1782, the folloioing Declaration and Resolutions xoere unanimously agreed to — " Right Hon. Lord Belmore in the Chair : " We, the nobility, representatives, freeholders, and inhabi- bitants of the county of Tyrone, thinking it now particularly necessary to declare our sentiments respecting the fundamental and undoubted rights of this nation ; and desirous by a season- able explanation to terminate any anxious jealousy, and to prevent the possibility of any future contest ; do declare we will, in every situation in life, and with all the means in our power, assert and maintain the constitutional rights of this kingdom, to be governed by such laws only as are enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we will in every instance uniformly and strenuously oppose the execu- tion of any statute, except such as derive authority from said parliament, pledging ourselves to our country and to each other, to support with our lives and fortunes this our solemn declaration ; and further we bind ourselves, that we will at all times renew this necessary vindication of our rights, till such time as they shall be explicitly acknowledged, and firmly estab- lished by the authority of parliament. " Finally we declare, that it is our wish to remove every jealousy between Great Britain and Ireland, and to prove to the world our unalterable affection to our sister kingdom ; surrounded as she is by a host of enemies, we are determined to share her liberty and share her fate. "Belmore, Chairman." "ANTRIM MEETING. " At a meeting of the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of Antrim, at an Assizes held at Carrickfergus, March 'llnd, 1782, the following Resolutions were una- nimously agreed to : " That we think it expedient and indispensably necessary now, to express our sentiments on certain points of undoubted THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 123 fundamental justice and rights, due to the subjects of this kingdom ; desirous by a seasonable explanation of our minds, to terminate every anxious jealously, and to prevent the pos- sibility of any future contest between our sister kingdom of Great Britain and us, with whom we desire to live on the purest terms of amity and most cordial friendship ; our interest being inseparable, being the same blood and people, and having the same charters of liberty and constitution granted to our ancestors, when they removed from England to Ireland, and being convinced that such a unity of right will increase and establish the strength of the whole British empire ; we there- fore do declare, that we will in every situation of life, by every constitutional means in our power, assert and support the inde- pendence of this nation on any other legislative body than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. We will endeavour to procure our free and equal commerce to be confirmed, and the army raised and paid by Ireland, to be regulated by a limited law of that kingdom, during the time they are provided for by the Irish parliament, and no longer. We will endeavour to have the liberty of the subject secured, the administration of justice impartially promoted by the independence of the judges, holding their employments upon a better and more certain tenure — fully determined by every constitutional means to sup- port the legal rights of Ireland. *' Resolved — That we think that an inseparable connexion between this country and Great Britain, but a distinct legis- lation, essentially necessary, not only for the prosperity of this kingdom, but for that of the empire at large. " A. M'Manus, Sheriff." "COUNTY OF MAYO. " At a meeting of the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Mayo, convenedby the High Sheriff, and of the Grand Jury of said county, at Spring Assizes, at Castlebar, on Sunday, the 2ith March, 1782, " Charles Costello, Esq. High Sheriff, in the Chair, *' The following Resolutions were entered into unanimously : " Resolved — That no power on earth has a right to make laws to bind this kingdom, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that any Irishman who directly or indirectly 124 APPENDIX, NO. III. DARES to deny that position, is an enemy to his country, and can only be sheltered from its resentment by the contemptibility of his character." The next is from Bandon, and evidences a spirit we trust to see again. "BANDON MEETING. " At a meeting of the Volunteer Corps of Bandon Cavalry, and Bandon Independent Company, convened by their respective Commanding Officers, at Bandon, the 25 fh of March, 1782, " Francis Bernard, Esq. Colonel of the Bandon Independent Company, in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That we look upon religious toler- ation as highly advantageous to society^-as powerfully aidant to civil liberty — as necessary for the strength and happiness of a state ; and we feel the greatest joy at the relaxation of those severe laws which affected the Roman Catholic inhabitants of this kingdom ; a measure most wise, most political, most neces- sary, and which must be attended with the happiest conse- quences, and produce a perfect union among all the people of Ireland. " Resolved unanimously — That we are attached to our most gracious Sovereign, with the most zealous and unshaken loy- alty ; and that our firm resolution is, to risk our lives and properties in defence of his crown, person, and dignity. " Resolved unanimously — That we regard our fellow-subjects of Great Britain with the most sincere aifection, and wish always to maintain the closest connexion with them, convinced that such is absolutely necessary for the strength and preservation of both kingdoms ; but as we are willing to share their fate in the extremities of danger, we are resolved to enjoy the free constitution they boast, and to which we are equally entitled ; and resolve that no power on earth can make laws to bind Ire- laud, except the King, Lords, and Commons thereof. " Signed, " S. Stawell, Col. Bandon Cavalry. " F. Bernard, Col. Bandon Infantry." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 125 LONDONDERRY MEETING. " At a Common Hall, held pursitant to public notice, March 28th, 1782, " Robert Fairly, Esq. Mayor, in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — We, the Mayor and Freemen of Londonderry, convinced that at this period it is incumbent on all people of Ireland, publicly to assert the unalienable rights of this nation, and that a seasonable exertion may produce such explanation as will remove the possibility of future contest with Great Britain, do declare, that we will in every situation in life, and with all means in our power, maintain the rights of this kingdom, to be governed only by the King, Lords, and Commons thereof ; and that we will, in every instance, uni- formly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statutes which do not derive their authority from the King, Lords, and Commons aforesaid. " Resolved unanimously — That it is our earnest wish to pre- serve, and by removing all jealousies perpetuate, an intimate and constitutional connexion with Britain ; and that surrounded as she is by an host of enemies, we are determined to share her liberties and share her fate. " Robert Fairly, Mayor." On the same day, the meeting of which we insert the follow- ing resolutions, was held in the City of Cork. "GLANMIRE UNION. " At a monthly meeting of the Glanmire Union, on the 2%th March, 1782, " Colonel Mannix in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That the people of Ireland are a free people, with a parliament of their own, to whose authority alone they are subject; now we, the Glanmire Union, asso- ciated for the defence of the realm, the laws, and the constitu- tion, do agree to the following resolutions : — " Resolved unanimously — That we do not acknowledge the jurisdiction of any parliament, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we think the people of this country are at this time particularly called upon to make such declaration. 126 APPENDIX, NO. III. " Resolved — " That we will in every capacity oppose the exe- cution of any statute imposed upon us by the pretended autho- rity of the British parliament. " Henry Mannix, Colonel." That spirit is re-echoed on the same day, by the "LAGAN VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of the Lagan Volunteers^ March 28^A, 1782, " Lieut-Colonel Walker in the Chair, " The Dungannon Resolutions of the \5th of February last, being read, and severally proposed : " Resolved unanimously — That we pledge ourselves to each other, and to our country, to persevere in every constitutional means of obtaining a redress of the grievances mentioned in the Dungannon Resolutions, and until the independence of Ireland, under the King of Great Britain, be firmly established and unequivocally explained. We find the following, bearing date the next day, the 29th of March, 1782, "COUNTY OF LONDONDERRY. " We, the High Sheriffs and Grand Jury of the City and County of Londonderry, assembled at an Assizes, held the 29 th day of March, 1782, in the Tow?i Hall of the city of Londonderry, ** Thinking it now peculiarly necessary to declare our senti- ments respecting the fundamental and undoubted rights of this nation ; and desirous, by seasonable explanation, to terminate an anxious jea.lously, and to prevent the possibility of any future contest ; do declare, that we Avill in every situation of life, and with all means in our power, assert and maintain the constitu- tional rights of this kingdom, to be governed by such laws only, as are enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we will in every instance uniformly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statutes, except such as derive their authority from said parliament ; pledging our- THE IKISH LEGISLATHE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 121 selves to our country and to each other, to support with our lives and fortunes, this our solemn declaration. And further we bind ourselves, that we will yearly renew this necessary vindication of our rights, till such time as they shall be expli- citly acknowledged, and firmly established by the authority of parliament." "Michael, Ross, > ou -cc » ,, ,XT J y Sheritts. " William Lennox, 3 And on the next day the following from Carlow — ''COUNTY OF CARLOW. " At Lent Assizes, March, 1782, " We, the Hic/h Sheriff" and Grand Juri/ of the County of Carlow, think the duty we owe to our country and our- selves, calls upon us to declare unanimously, " That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the ONLY power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom, and that every attempt by any other body of men to exercise this right, is unconstitvAional, illegal, and a grievance. *' Richard Mercer, Sheriff. " Robert Power, Foreman." The spirit of Galway shines in the annexed Resolutions. "COUNTY GALWAY. '■^ Spring Assizes, 1782. ^^At a full meeting of the Grand Jury, Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the Comity of Galway, assembled pursuant to public notice from the High Sheriff, at the County Hall in Galway, March 3\st, 1782, " John Kelly, of Castlekelly, Esq. in the Chair, *' Resolved — that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this king- dom, and that we will resist the execution of any other with our lives and fortunes. "Resolved — That il force constitutes right, the people of this country have a right to use force against the man who dares to maintain doctrine subversive of their constitution ; 128 APPENDIX, NO. III. but as the object is beneath the dignity of the national resent- ment, we shall only bid such a man beware how he hereafter trifles with the rights of his country, and provokes the ven- geance of a people determined to be free" We insert the following, not only from the intrinsic merit of the resolution, but from the name of the chairman. "COUNTY OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD. " We^ the Grand Jury of the County of the City of Water- ford^ at Spring Assizes, 1782, assembled, think the duty we owe to our country and ourselves, calls upon us at this time to declare — " That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom ; and that every attempt by any other body of men to exercise this right, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance. " Simon Newport, Foreman." The following from the county of Wexford, was passed about the same time, though it was printed without a date. "COUNTY OF WEXFORD. " We, the High Sheriff, Foreman, and Grand Jury of the County of Wexford, this day assembled, " Thinking it now peculiarly necessary to declare our senti- ments respecting the fundamental and undoubted rights of this nation, and desirous by a seasonable explanation to terminate an anxious jealously, and to prevent the possibility of any future contest, do unanimously declare — " That we will in every situation of life, and with all means in our power, assert and maintain the constitutional rights of this kingdom to be governed by such laws only, as are enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we will in every instance uniformly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statutes, except such as derive authority from said parliament. " Henry Brownrigg, Sheriff. " Henry Thomas Haughton, Foreman." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 121) "COUNTY OF LIMERICK. "TVe^the Grand Jury of the County of Limerick, at Spring Assizes, 1782, assembled, think the duty we owe to our country and ourselves, makes it indispensably necessary for us unanimously to declare, " That the members of the House of Commons derive their power solely from, and are the only representatives of the peo- ple ; and that a denial of this position would be to abdicate the representation. " That the King, I^ords, and Commons of Ireland, are the ONLY power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom ; and that an attempt of any other to usurp such right, is subversive of our constitutional liberties, illegal, and a grievance. "John Grady, Foreman." "COUNTY OF CORK. " Resolutions of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, at Spring Assizes, 1782. " Resolved — That we think it necessary to declare, that no power has a right to make laws for this kingdom, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we shall not consider ourselves to be bound by any other ; and that we will with our lives and fortunes maintain and defend the Irish par- liament in such a declaration of rights, and in any measure that they may think proper to support it. "Richard Townsend, Foreman." " CITY OF KILKENNY. " We, the Grand Jury of the County of the City of Kil- kenny, at Spring Assizes, 1782, assembled, conscious that every citizen loho icishes to support the glorious cause of liberty, should at this critical juncture declare his sen- timents, have unanimously entered into the following Re- solutiojis : " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power that have a right to make laws to bind Ire- land ; and we will, to the utmost of our power, resist the exe- cution of any other laws. " T. Butler, Foi'eman." K 130 APPENDIX, NO. Ill- "COUNTY OF KILKENNY. ^^ At a meeting of the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County Kilkenny^ at Lent Assizes, 1782. " We do declare for ourselves, that we deny the authority of the British parliament to make laws to bind this kingdom, and that we will not obey, but resist the execution of any laws so made ; and that we are ready to support our parliament in de- claring its exclusive rights, with our lives and fortunes. " Resolved unanimously — That Great Britain and Ireland are, and ought to be, inseparably connected, by being governed by the same king, and enjoying equal liberty and similar con- stitutions. " James Kearney, Sheriff. " H. Blunt, Foreman." " COUNTY OF MONAGHAN. " We, the High Sheriff, Foreman, and Grand Jury of the County of Monaglian, this day assembled, " Thinking it now peculiarly necessary to declare our sentl- timents respecting the fundamental and undoubted rights of this nation, and desirous by a seasonable explanation to terminate an anxious jealousy, and to prevent the possibility of any future contest, do unanimously declare, that we will, in every situation of life, and with all means in our power, assert and maintain the constitutional rights of this kingdom, to be governed by such laws ONLY as are enacted by the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland ; and that we will in every instance uniformly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statutes, except such as derive authority from said parliament. " Thomas Corry, Sheriff. " Samuel Madden, Foreman." « COUNTY OF TIPPERARY. We, the Grand Jury of the County of Tipperary, at Spring Assizes, 1782, assembled, think the duty ice owe to our country and ourselves, calls upon us thus to de- clare — THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 131 " That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the ONLY power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom ; and that every attempt by any other body of men to exercise this right, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance. " Francis Matthew, Sheriff." "COUNTY OF KILKENNY. " IvERK Volunteers, commanded by the Right Hon. John PoNsoNBY, Colonel. " At a full meeting of the Iverk Volunteers at Bessboro', on Easter Monday, 1782, Major Osborne in the Chair, " Resolved — That we conceive the first step now necessary for this great purpose, to be a solemn and recorded declaration in parliament, of the legislative rights of this free nation, and that no body of men have any power or authority to make laws to bind this ancient and independent kingdom, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. " Resolved — That it is the mutual interest of Great Britain and Ireland, always to possess the closest degree of liberal con- nexion. We are persuaded, from this motive, as well as from partiality, affinities, and affections, it is the universal and sin- cere desire of our countrymen, that the whole kingdoms, by having the same king, equal liberty, and similar constitutions, should remain inseparably connected for ever. " Signed by order, " Peter Walsh, Secretary." "MOUNTMELLICK VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of said Volunteers, at Mountmellick, April \st, 1782, Lord Viscount Carlow, in the Chair. " Resolved unanimously — That the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland, are the only power who have, or ought to have, any right to make laws to bind this kingdom, and that we will not obey or give operation to any laws, except those enacted by them. k2 132 APPENDIX, NO. III. " Resolved unanimously — That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably connected by every tie that can cement a union between two nations, and should enjoy equal liberty and similar constitutions. " Signed by order, " John Shaw, Secretary." "COUNTY KILKENNY CASTLEDURROW VOLUNTEERS. " At a full meethifj of the Castledurrow Volunteers, held at the Marhet-house, April \st, 1782, " Resolved — That no power on earth has a right to make laws to bind this kingdom, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, and that we will, in every instance, uni- formly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statute or laws, except such as are formed by the authority aforesaid. " Signed by order, " John B. Ridge, Secretary." « COUNTY SLIGO.— TYRERIL TRUE BLUES. " At a meeting of the Tyreril True Blues, held at Col- looney, April \st, 11^2, pursuant to notice, " The Rev. John Little in the Chair, " Resolved — That considering ourselves as free citizens, armed in defence of ourselves, the laws and constitution of our country, and disclaiming any jurisdiction whatsoever, but of the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, we are firmly determined, with our lives and fortunes, to support every mea- sure which may tend towards a preservation of that indepen- dence ; and we also declare, that we will in every capacity oppose the execution of all such statutes, as the (at present to us seemingly) usurped authority of a British parliament has hitherto enacted, or may hereafter attempt to impose on a country, whose great wishes are to be free ; at the same time, that we declare in almost the words of our worthy brethren, the delegates of the Connaught corps, that the chief wish of our hearts is to clasp our sister nation to our bosom, and THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 133 cement an indissoluble union between us ; attached to her by every tie of affection and interest that can unite nations, sur- rounded as she is by a host of enemies, we are resolved to share her liberty, and share her fate. "John Little, Chairman." "PORTARLINGTON INFANTRY. " At a meeting of the Portarlington Infantry, assembled hy notice, on Tuesday, April 2nd, 1782, Major Legrand in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That mutual and inseparable in- terests should unite Great Britain and Ireland. As Citizens and Volunteers, we will never lose sight of that grand object. We took up arms to support his Majesty against the enemies of Great Britain and Ireland ; to protect ourselves, and to main- tain, by every constitutional mode, the freedom and indepen- dence of this kingdom, bound only by laws enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, whose rights and liberties we jointly and severally are determined to support with our lives and propei'ties. " Wm. Henry Legrand, Chairman." "QUEEN'S COUNTY. " Lent Assizes, 1782. " At a meeting of the Grand Jury of said county, at Maryborough, Tuesday, 2nd April, 1782, George Burdett, Esq. Foreman, in the Chair, The following Resolutions ivere agreed to : " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, being fully and alone competent to enact laws to bind the same, the interference of any other legislature is inconsistent, inju" rious, and oppressive, and that we will ever resist the execution of any such pretended laws, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes. " Resolved — That any idea of separation from the imperial crown of Great Britain, is absurd, extravagant, and ruinous ; that attached by loyalty and duty to his Majesty's person and 134 APPENDIX, NO. III. government, and by affection and interest united to Great Britain, we will stand and fall by her ; but that being bound to share her distresses, we are entitled to a full participation of her liberty, and we hope the candour of her legislature will remove every ideal ground of future jealousy and cavil. " George Burdett, Foreman." "STRABANE MEETING. " At a meeting of the Inhabitants of the toic7i of Sti'abane, o7i the 3rd of April, 1782, in order to take into considera- tion the present state of public affairs, John Sproule, Esq. Provost, in the Chair, " Resolved — That we will, in every situation of life, and with all the means in our power, assert and maintain the con- stitutional right of this kingdom, to be governed by such laws only, as are enacted by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; and that we will, in every instance, uniformly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statute, except such as derive authority from said parliament. " John Sproule, Provost." It appears that a Volunteer Convention was held at Carlow, at which the following resolutions were passed : — " At a general meeting of the Delegates from the several Volunteer Corps of the Queens County, viz. — 5 of Cavalry, and 15 of Infantry, held at Maryborough, April 3, 1782, The Viscount Carlow in the Chair, I^he folloiving Resolutions loere unanimously agreed to — " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are fully and alone competent to enact laws to bind the same, and that we will resist the execution of any other pretended laws, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes. •' Resolved — That any idea of separation from the imperial crown of Great Britain, is absurd, extravagant, and ruinous ; that enjoying similar constitutions, we are entitled to equal liberty ; and we hope the prudence of the British Legislature THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 135 will remove every ideal ground of future jealousy and discon- tent, and that no mere cavil in words, may prevent that affec- tionate and perfect amity and union we ever wish to preserve. " Cablow, Chairman." " UNIVERSITY MEETING. " At a meeting of the Electors of the University, convened on Wednesday, the 3rd April, 1782, by public notice, Mr. William Baker, in the Chair, " The following Address teas unanimoushj agreed to, and ordered to be presented to their Representatives. " To the Right Hon. Walter Burgh, and John Fitzgibbon, Esq., Representatives in part for the University of Dublin. " Gentlemen — The power of binding Ireland by acts of a foreign legislature, is what nothing but a spirit of arrogance or oppression would insist upon — nothing but the most abject ser- vility submit to ; for we cannot suppose, that the appearance of a claim which irritates the whole body of the people, would be retained, unless there was an intention of enforcing this claim hereafter. We are therefore convinced, that an express decla- ration of rights is the only measure upon which this country can build its legislative independence ; and that a reluctance to assert the constitution of the land, may furnish Great Britain with a pretence for denying the justice of our requisition. " It is our wish to render the connexion between this country and Great Britain as close and permanent as possible, and we are persuaded that this is only to be accomplished by abolishing all usurped authority of the one over the other, and removing every invidious distinction between the constitutions of the two countries, equally entitled to be free. " Wm. Baker, Chairman." "TO THE ELECTORS OF TRINITY COLLEGE, " GentlemEx\ — I have always been of an opinion that the claim of the British parliament to make laws for this country, is a daring usurpation on the rights of a free people, and have uniformly asserted this opinion both in public and in private. When a declaration of the legislative right was moved in the 136 APPENDIX, NO. III. House of Commons, I did oppose it, upon a decided conviction, that it was a measure of a dangerous tendency, and withal in- adequate to the purpose for which it was intended. However, I do, without hesitation, yield my own opinion upon this subject to yours, and will, whenever such a declaration shall be moved, give it my support. " I have the honour to be. Gentlemen, " With gTeat respect, " Your most obedient and very humble Servant, " John Fitzgibbon. « Mount Shannon, April 11th, 1782." The following resolution is significant, and we have therefore selected it from amongst many. *' At a meeting of the Cumber Battalion, April 4th, 1782. " Colonel David Ross in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That an equal distribution of jus- tice is both the glory and strength of every empire. *' Resolved unanimously — That to assert or maintain that this kingdom is to be governed by any other power except the King", Lords, and Commons of Ireland, is an unequal distribu- tion of justice, a subversion of the rights of this kingdom, and detrimental to the real happiness of the whole empire. " David Ross, Chairman." " CLARE MEETING. " At a meeting^ of the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Clare, convened by the High Sheriff, at'' Ennis^^ April 6th, 17 S2, pwsuant to jmblic notice, " Poole Hickman, Esq., High SherlflF, in the Chair, " The following Resolutions were agreed to: " Resolved — That it appears to us to be absolutely necessary to declare, that no power on earth has any right to make laws to bind this kingdom, save the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. THE IRISH LEGLSLATIVK INDEPENDENCE CONTKOVERS Y. 137 " Resolved — That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance. " Poole Hickman, Sheriff." The Grand Jury of the city of Cox'k signalized their patriot- ism in the following manner : — "GRAND JURY OF THE CITY OF CORK. " Council Chamber^ April Qth, 1782, " Resolved — That the exercise of the power of legislation, by any foreign legislature, is degrading to the country over which such power is exerted, subversive of its liberties, calcu- lated to break down the spirit of its people, and sufficient to reduce a great kingdom to the contemptible situation of a tributary province. " That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland are the legislature thereof, competent solely, and in exclusion of every other power on earth, to make laws to bind this kingdom ; and that every attempt by any other body of men to exercise this right, is unconstitutional, and ought to be resisted. " That the claim of the British parliament to bind this kingdom by laws, is a claim disgraceful and unproductive ; disgraceful to us, because it is an infringement of our constitu- tion ; unproductive to Great Britain, because the exercise of it will not be submitted to by the people of Ireland. " R. H. Hutchinson, Foreman." " UNION REGIMENT. " At a meeting of the Representatives of the several Corps of this Regiment, held at the Market-house in Moira, on Monday, the 8th of April, 1782, in order to take into consideration the Dungannon Resolutions, *' LiEUTENANT-CoL. Shakman in the Chair, '* Resolved — That in the present general appeal to the people, we think ourselves called on, as part of the civil body, to make a public declaration of our principles. " Resolved — That his Majesty's loyal subjects of this regi- ment entertain a sincere and unfeigned attachment to his Majesty's person and government. 138 APPENDIX, NO. III. " Resolved — That his Majesty's people of Ireland are a free people, inheritors of a free constitution, descended to them from their ancestors. " Resolved — That his Majesty's kingdom of Ireland is a distinct kingdom, giving a distinct title to the Imperial Crown,, with a parliament of its own, the sole legislature of the state. *' Resolved — That it is the undoubted right of this free people, (a right which they value as their lives,) to be governed solely by their own laws. That the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland, are the only representatives of this crown and people ; and the interposition of any other body of men with the legislature of this country, is incompatible with our funda- mental laws and franchises. " Resolved — That next to our liberties, we value our con- nexion with Great Britain, as a blessing on which the happiness of both kingdoms depends ; we shall look forward therefore with a pleasing conviction, that the justice of Great Britain will shake hands with the liberties of Ireland ; and that the liberal renunciation of claims so useless to the claimants — to us the cause of discontent, and to others of fatal calamities — will secure the peace of the present, and the attachment of the succeeding generations. " Signed by order, " Wm. Bateman, Secretary." The following short but distinct Resolution was passed by the Sessions Grand Jury of the City of Dublin : "CITY OF DUBLIN MEETING. " At a meeting of the Sessions Grand Jury for the County of the City of Dublin, held at the Tholsel, on Monday, April 8th, 1782, the following Resolution was unani- mously agreed to : " Resolved — That every attempt of the British Parliament to restrain or limit the trade, or to frame laws for the government of this kingdom, is illegal and unconstitutional. " Patrick Bride, Foreman." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 139 The following Resolutions show how ardent and continued was the patriotism of the County of Wexford, at the period to which we refer. "COUNTY WEXFORD. " At a meeting of the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Wexford, convened by the High Sheriff at the County Court House, on Tuesday the 9 th day of April, 1782, pursuant to public notice, " Resolved — That the late spirited and successful efforts of the parliament of Great Britain, to assert her own rights, and support their own constitution, against the undue influence of the Crown, is an example well worthy the imitation of the parliament of Ireland. " Resolved — That Great Britain and Ireland ought to enjoy equal liberty and the same constitution, and that we will, in every situation of life, and with all the means in our power, support this position. " That we deny the authority of the British Parliament to make laws to bind this kingdom, and that we will not obey any laws that shall be so made. " Henry Brownrigg, Sheriff." We could not possibly refuse to insert the following declara- tion of the inhabitants of the County of Kerry, in County Meeting assembled. "COUNTY KERRY MEETING. " We, the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Kerry, convened at Tralee, on Tuesday, the 9th day of April, 1782, pursuant to notice given by the High Sheriff, " Do unanimously declare — That we acknowledge no other power save the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, as com- petent to make laws to bind this kingdom ; that we conceive the interference of any other body, for that purpose, to be a wanton and unwarrantable encroachment, and an infringement of our rights ; and that we do expect such declaration from our repre- sentatives in parliament. " Denis Mahony, Sherif!"." HO APPENDIX, NO. III. Thus spoke the friends of freedom in Dungarvan — " DUNGARVAN VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of the Dungarvan Volunteers, Nos. 1 and 2, at the Town House in Dungarvan, the \Oth of April, 1782, Captain Boat in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " John Wilkinson, Secretary." In similar terms the Farbill Light Dragoons expressed themselves : "COUNTY WESTMEATH. " At a full meeting of the Farbill Light Dragoons, held at Killucan the \Qth day of April, 1782, Captain Robert Cooke in the Chair, The following Resolution teas agreed to : "■ Resolved — That no power on earth is competent to make laws to bind Ireland, except the King, Lords, and Commons thereof." " Robert Cook, Chairman." The same resolution was adopted by the RATHDOWN LIGHT DRAGOONS, County of Dublin. ^^ At a meeting of this Corps, on Wednesday, the IQth of April, 1782, CoL. Sir John Allen Johnson, Bart., in the Chair, The following Resolution was unanimously agreed to : " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are alone competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. J. A. Johnson, Chairman." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 141 It appears that all classes in the County of Dublin were ani- mated with a desire to pledge themselves in the strongest way to the doctrine of Irish Independence. ''COUNTY OF DUBLIN. " At a meeting of the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of Dublin, assembled in the Court House at Kilmainham, on Thursday, Wth April, 1782, Thomas Baker, Esq. Foreman, in the Chair, The following Resolutions were agreed to : " Resolved — That no power on earth, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, can in right make laws to bind the people of this land. " Resolved — That the members of the House of Commons are the representatives of, and derive their power solely from the people ; and that a denial of this proposition by them, would be to abdicate the representation. " Thomas Baker, Foreman." We cannot exclude the following Resolution — "MULLINGAR VOLUNTEERS. At a meeting of the Midlingar Corps, on Friday, April \Wi, 1782, Wm. Judge, Esq. Colonel, in the Chair, " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this king- dom, and that we will not assist in the execution of any but those enacted by the legislature aforesaid. *' Wm. Judge, Chairman." How strange it will appear to those who know the Corpora- tion of Dublin, to find that they could have passed such a Resolution as the following : 142 APPENDIX, NO. III. At an Assemble/ held at the Tholsel of the City of Dublin^ on Friday, the 12th day of April, 1782, " Resolved unanimously — That we conceive that the people of this country are now called upon to declare, that the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. " Taylor and Lambert, Town Clerks." There is material of the highest temper in the following Resolutions. " COUNTY OF DUBLIN LIGHT DRAGOONS. " At a meeting of the County of Dublin Light Dragoons, on parade, April \Ath, 1782, The Right Hon. Luke Gardiner in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That the King, Lords, and Com- mons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this kingdom. *' Resolved unanimously — That until the indisputable rights of the different branches of the legislature of this kingdom shall be fully recognised, harmony between Great Britain and Ire- land can never be completely established. " Resolved unanimously — That any man, or body of men, in either kingdom, who at this crisis can hesitate at a recogni- tion of ovu" rights, must be considered as holding sentiments tending to separate Great Britain and Ireland, and inimical to the tranquillity of both kingdoms. " Luke Gardiner, Chairman." Thus spoke the County of Cork, and may it soon so speak again. "COUNTY OF CORK MEETING. " At a meeting of the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Cork, convened pursuant to advertise- ment, at the County Court House, on Monday, I5th day of April, 1782, " Abraham Morris, Esq., High Sheriff, in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That national and independent legislation, being the fundamental right of the subject, without THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 143 the establishment of which we can never hope for security to our person or our properties, is an object of great national importance ; and that we will assert, promote, maintain, and \ defend, this and all our other natural and inherent rights, by every constitutional means ; solemnly declaring, that no power or state whatsoever, hath any right to make laws to bind this kingdom, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. " Resolved unanimously — That as we hold the interests and connexions of Great Britain and Ireland to be inseparable, so we also declare their legislature to be distinct and independent of each other, and that the security and firmness of the former, can only be maintained by the establishment of the latter. "Abraham Morris, Sheriff." The following emphatic declarations emanated from the "KING'S COUNTY.— BARONY OF KILCOURSY . UNION. " At a meeting of the Barony of Kilcoursy Union, held at Horseleap, on Tuesday the \Qth April, 1782, " Major Bagot in the Chair, " The following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to : " Resolved — That we highly approve of the virtuous and patriotic Resolutions of the Ulster Delegates, assembled at Dungannon on the 15th of February last. *' Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, are the only power competent to make laws to bind this king- dom, and that we will resist, with our lives and fortunes, the execution of any other laws, save those only that are enacted by the authority aforesaid. " Signed by order, " Joseph Henderson, Sec." We heartily concur in the sentiments expressed in the fol- lowing resolutions: 144 APPENDIX, NO. III. " CLONLONAN VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of the Clonlonan Light Infantry, at Moate, on Tuesday, the I6th April, 1782, " CoiiONEL George Clibbokn in the Chair, " The following Resolutions icere unanimously agreed to : " Resolved — That we will steadily maintain, and strenuously support the principles of our original institution, the defence of our country against foreign enemies, the preservation of the public peace, and the protection of our constitutional freedom, rights, and privileges. " Resolved — That the sole power of enacting laws to bind this kingdom, is vested in the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland only ; and that we will not, as Volunteers, or in any other capacity, enforce the execution of any laws, except such as have received that constitutional sanction. " Signed by order, " J. Adamson, Secretary." The Wicklow Convention expressed itself thus : — "WICKLOW VOLUNTEERS. " At a yneeting of the Representatives of the Independent Wickloio Foresters, Cavalry and Infantry, at Wickloio, the 20th of April, 1782, " Colonel Hates in the Chair, " Resolved unanimously — That though we had conceived the general voice of this county, in the unanimous resolutions passed at last Lent Assizes, had fully spoken our sentiments, yet per- ceiving that several respectable corps have thought it proper to remove every possible doubt of their principles, by speaking particularly for themselves ; and being fully persuaded, that subjects, by acquiring a knowledge in the use of arms, do in no respects relinquish the rights to a free discussion of public measures, we do now declare, that no power on earth has a power to make laws to bind this kingdom, but the King, with the Lords and Commons of Ireland. THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 145 We close our extracts with the following : "LISMORE VOLUNTEERS. " At a full meeting of the Independent Blues of Lismore, in the County of Waterford, on the Isf of April, 1782, " Robert Cooke, Esq. in the Chair, " Resolved — That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland only, are competent to make laws to bind this kingdom ; and that an usurpation of this power by any other body of men, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance. " Robert Cooke." " 1782. — April 6. — Address of the Committee of the Dun- gannon Delegates to the Electors and Members of Parliament in Ulster, on their duties, and the conduct to he pursued by them at the approaching General Election. <' ULSTER VOLUNTEERS. " By the subscribing Members of the Committee. " To the Electors and Members of Parliament in the Province of Ulster. " Gentlemen, — Delegated by the Volunteers assembled at Dungannon, we call on you to support the constitutional and commercial rights of Ireland — to exert the important privileges of Freemen at the ensuing Election, and to proclaim to the world that you at least deserve to be free. " Regard not the threats of landlords or their agents. " We entreat you in the name of the great and respectable body we represent — we implore you by every social and honour- able tie — we conjure you as Citizens, as Freemen, as lRiSH>rEN, to raise this long insulted kingdom, and restore to her her lost rights. One great and united effort will place us among the first nations of the earth ; and those who shall have the glory of contributing to that event will be for ever recorded as the Saviours of their country. L 146 APPENDIX, NO. III. ** William Irvine, Francis Lucas, Alexander Stewart, Robert Campbell, James Dawson, John Coulson, Robert M'Clintock, Thomas Morris Jones, Francis Dobbs, Joseph Pollock, James Acheson, Robert Black, John Ferguson, Andrew Thompson, James M'Clintock, Waddell Cunningham, Thomas Dickson, William Crawford, Charles Powell Leslie, Charles Nisbitt, John Harvey, Francis Evans, David Bell, Robert Thompson." ''COUNTY OF DOWN. " We, the High Sheriff, Grand Jury, Freeholders, and Inha- bitants of the county of Down, assembled in Downpatrick, at an Assizes held for said county, the 15th day of March, 1782, thinking it now peculiarly necessary to declare our sentiments respecting the fundamental and undoubted rights of this nation, and desirous, by a seasonable explanation, to terminate an anxious jealousy, and to prevent the possibility of any future contest, do declare, that we will, in every situation of life, and with all the means in our power, assert and maintain the con- stitutional right of this kingdom, to he governed hy such laws only, as are enacted hy the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland; and that we will, in every instance, uniformly and strenuously oppose the execution of any statutes, except such as derive authority from said parliament, pledging ourselves to our country, and to each other, to support, with our lives and fortunes, this our solemn declaration ; and farther, we bind ourselves, that we will yearly renew this necessary vindication of our rights, till such time as they shall be explicitly ac- knowledged, and firmly established by the authority of par- liament. " Thomas Douglas, Sheriff. Grand Jurors : Richard Annesly, Foreman, by order of the majority of the Grand Jury. Robert Ward, Matthew Ford, 1 7 Nicholas Price, 8 Gawin Hamilton, 9 Simon Isaac, 1 1 Richard Magennis, 12 Arthur Johnston, 13 Alexander Stuart, 14 James Waddell, THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 147 15 Nicholas Harrison, 16 Matthew Forde, jun. 17 Francis Savage, 18 John Kennedy, 20 Samuel Gibbons, 21 Charles Inues, 22 Robert Montgomery, 23 James Crawford, John Blackwood, Roger Hall, Pat. Savage, Edward Ward, Francis Price, John Echlin, Robert Lambert, James Ham. Clewlow, John Crawford, James Clewlow, Eldred Pottinger, Henry West, William Waring, Steele Hawthorn, John Aughinleck, William Hamilton, James Hamilton, Francis Turnley, And five thousand eight hundred and fifty-two others." DOWN VOLUNTEERS. " At a full meeting of the Doicn Volunteers, assembled by public notice at the Court-house in Downpatrick, on Sun- day, the 3rd of March, 1782, to fake into consideration the Resolutions and Address entered into and published by the Meeting of Delegates from the Volunteers of Ulster, assembled at Dungannon, on the \5th day of February last. Captain Henry West in the Chair : " Resolved — That we highly approve of the Resolutions and Address entered into by those gentlemen ; and as we think them dictated by the spirit of moderation, liberality of sentiment, and patriotism, we are determined to support and accede to them, both in our private and public capacities, as citizens and Volunteers. " Resolved — That our Chairman do communicate our ap- probation of, and accession to said Resolutions, to the Secretary of the Dungannon Meeting, and inform him that we most willingly embrace the invitation to become Members of that Association. " Signed by order, " Henry West." l2 148 APPENDIX, NO. III. Bangor, March 23, 1782. " At a numerous meeting of the Inhabitants of the Town and Parish of Bangor, convened by a public advertisement signed bg several of the principal Freeholders, " Rev. James Ham. Clewlow in the Chair, The Resolutions and Address of the Ulster Volunteers, represented at Dungannon, being read paragraph by para- graph — " Resolved — That the said resolutions and address fully and perfectly express our sentiments, and that we will co-operate with all the friends of Ireland, with our lives and fortunes, in obtaining our national rights. " Resolved — That we will vote for no candidate at any future election, who shall not enter into the most solemn engagement, that he will endeavour to procure redress of all the grievances mentioned in the Dungannon Resolutions ; that he will regu- larly attend his duty in parliament, and obey the instructions of his constituents. " Resolved — That the persons who shall be thought worthy of our support, shall not be subjected to any expense on our account. " Resolved — That a freeholder is answerable only to God for his vote, and that whosoever shall attempt to influence him by any other means than that of argument, is an enemy to the freedom of election, and consequently to the real interest of his country. " Resolved — That James Hamilton Clewlow, John Crawford, Patrick Clevland, William Nicholson, Don. Nicholson, James Hull, John Blackwood, William Blackwood, James Gray, James Johnstone, Hugh Jackson, Robert Dunn, and Alexander Reid, be appointed a Committee to call the next Meeting of the Parish, and till then to communicate with similar Committees, which may be appointed in other parishes of this county, five to be a quorum. " Signed by order, " James Ham. Clew^-ow." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 149 *•' At a meeting of the united Parishes of Killinchy^ Kilmud^ and TollynaJiill, at the Dissenting Meeting-house of Killinchy, in the Barony of Dufferin, convened by pub- lic notice, the \Zth April, 1782, " Hamilton Moore, Esq., in the Chair, *' The following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to: " That the Dungannou Resolutions are founded in wisdom and justice, and breathe the true spirit of toleration and inde- pendence ; we, therefore, pledge ourselves to join with them, in every measure that may tend to establish our rights, and promote the happiness of the people. " That we will not support any man, on the ensuing election, but such as are of approved integrity, and friends to the constitution of Ireland." "SAINTFIELD LIGHT INFANTRY. " At a meeting of the Saintfield Light Infantry, April 24th, 1782, the folloicing Resolutions xoere unanimously agreed to : " Resolved — That we highly approve of, and heartily accede to the spirited Resolutions entered into by the Delegates assembled at Dungannon on the 15th of February last. " Resolved— r- That our thanks are due to those men who have so strenuously supported and maintained our rights in parliament. " Nicholas Price, Captain." " At a meeting of the Ards Battalion, in the County of Down, on the 22d April, 1782, '* Colonel Savage in the Chair, <' Resolved unanimously — That the manly, laudable, and moderate Resolutions of the Ulster Volunteers, met at Dungan- non, have our warmest approbation, and that we most heartily accede to them : with pleasure we accept of their invitation, and think ourselves honoured by being admitted members of so truly respectable a body. " Pat. Savage." 150 APPENDIX, NO. III. A Petition to the Irish Parliament from the County of Down, against the Union, was adopted at a meeting convened by the SheriflP, at the County Court-house, on the 27th of January, 1800. This Petition is too long for insertion, we therefore limit ourselves to the following extract from it : " We therefore beg leave to express our firm and confident hope, that you will maintain that happy constitution and con- nexion, which has heretofore given us the blessings of protection and prosperity, by a speedy access to our resident Parliament, which can only preserve our happy and constitutional con- nexion with Great Britain, our Rights, our Liberties, and the true interests of Ireland." This petition was signed by lYjSOO Freeholders of the County of Down. ^ Extract from Lord Greys Speech in the British Parlia- ment, in the year 1800. ******" Twenty-seven counties have petitioned against the measure (the Union) ; the petition from the county of Down is signed by upwards of 1 7,000 respectable indepen- dent men, and all the others are in a similar proportion. Dublin petitioned under the great seal of the city, and each of the corpoi'ations in it followed the example. Drogheda petitioned against the Union, and almost every other town in the kingdom in like manner testified its disapprobation. Those in favour of the measure, possessing great influence in the country, obtained a few counter-petitions ; yet, though the petition from the county Down was signed by 17,000, the counter-petition was signed only by 415; though there were 707,000 who had signed petitions against the measure, the total number of those who declared themselves in favour of it, did not exceed 3,000, and many even of those only prayed that the measure might be discussed. If the facts I state are true— and I challenge any man to falsify them — could a nation in more direct terms express its disapprobation of a political measure than Ireland has of a Legislative Union with Great Britain? In fact, the nation is nearly unanimous, and this great majority is composed not of fanatics, bigots, or Jacobins, but of the most respectable of every class in the community." THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE CONTROVERSY. 151 COUNTIES OF DOWN AND ANTRIM. At a meeting of the following Orange Lodges, viz. No. 39, Ralph Bullock, Master. 67, George Watson, do. 70, James Woods, do. 75, Samuel Craige, do. 87, Robert Patterson, do. 100, James Hill, do. Ill, Joseph Cherry, do. 113, William M'Dead, do. 121, Thomas Briggs, do. 128, Robert M'Com, do. 130, Robert Kyle, do. 144, Isaac Rennyson, do. 164, Joseph Collins, do. 206, William Moore, do. 237, William M'Com, do. 257, John Elliot, do. No. 258, James Peyton, Master. 287, John Irwin, do. 288, John Johnston, do. 319, James Gorman, do. 328, Richd. Parkinson, do. 345, Thomas Craige, do. 403, Jonathan Gilbert, do. 442, William Ewart, do. 466, Thomas Martin, do. 547, Wills Phcenix, do. 528, Robert M'Knight, do. 602, George Scott, do. 616, Andw. Standfield, do. 752, Samuel Silbarn, do. 771, Thos. Chambers, do. 792, Adam Magee, do. held at the Maze, on Saturday, \st March, 1800 ; — " Resolved — That as Orangemen we have associated for the preservation of the Laws and Constitution of this Kingdom, and that as such, we are determined strenuously to persevere iu declaring, that we consider a Legislative Union with Great Britain as INEVITABLE RUIN TO THE PEACE, PROSPERITY, AND HAPPINESS OF THIS KING- DOM." APPENDIX, No. IV. "COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES." The following recorded evidences of the ungenerous spirit Engush in which England has acted towards Ireland in points to^EnghsV^ /vi.-i 'ij r J. ' • 1 commercial affecting her commercial and manuiacturmg prosperity, jealousy of are taken from English sources. ^ ^ ' The first is from Anderson's "History of Commerce." It shews that the more favourable conduct of England in the points alluded to, previous to the 17 th century, was subsequently a subject of regret. Anderson has not noted the reason of that early favour. It was simply because the commerce and trifling manufactures of Ireland were in towns that were mere English fortresses along the Irish coast. But when the Irish began to have a share, she commenced her oppressions, and gave free vent to her ungenerous and cruel jealousy of Irish prosperity. " In those early days commerce was not so perfectly under- stood as to be made subservient to the political interests of princes and states. Of this we have an instance under the year 1289} being the l7th of King Edward I., when an act passed relating to Ireland, the 4th section whereof gives ' leave for 154 APPENDIX, NO. IV. all kinds of merchandize to be exported from Ireland, except to the King's enemies.' Certainly, then as well as now, there were some Irish commodities that interfered with those of the same kind in England, and particularly wool and leather. Even much later than this time, we find another law to the like elFect in the 34th year of King Edward III., being the year of our Lord 1360, c. 17, 'giving leave for all kinds of merchandize to be exported from and into Ireland, as well by aliens as denizens ;' and also c. 1 8 of the same year enacts, ' that all per- sons who have lands and possessions in Ireland might freely import thither, and also export from that kingdom their own commodities,' which liberty, in our days, would be deemed unsafe and dangerous." — 1763, p. 321, vol. 1, Anderson's Commerce. This was written in 1763, but there are earlier proofs of the evil disposition of England. Sir William Temple, writing in 1673, thus advised the then Lord Lieutenant of Lreland : — '' Regard must be had to those points wherein the trade of Ireland comes to interfere with that of England, in which case the Irish trade ought to be declined, so as to give way to the ti'ade of England." This policy was very effectively followed up. Indeed ten years before Sir William Temple wrote, Irish com- merce got a cruel blow from the Navigation Acts of Charles II. She was cut off from all direct trade with the colonies, just as she was beginning to find it most profitable. For details we refer the reader to a subsequent part of this article, as well as for the details of the ruin of our woollen manufactures, by the compliance of William III. with the grossly and tyrannously unjust demand to that effect, made upon him by the British parliament. We proceed with our authorities. The cruel effect of the act of William III. was well described by the historian, Barlow : — THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 155 " From the establishment of the act of settlement and explana- tion, Ireland had rapidly increased in wealth and improvement, to the admiration and envy of her neighbours, till it vpas again laid waste by the revolutionary wars under William III., and even from this calamity it was recovering with such quickness, that in 1698 the balance of trade in its favour amounted to between ybwr and Jive hundred thousand pounds. " But the effects were permanent of restricting laws, insur- mountable by the fertility of the soil, the ingenuity of the inhabitants, navigable rivers, and a multitude of harbours." — (Vol. 1, p. 290.) The 17th century having thus closed, we give, from a pamphlet published in London, in 1727, an evidence of the continuance, in the 18th century, of the same arrogant and insolently selfish spirit, with Avhich our interests were treated. " Seasonable Remarks on Trade, with some Rejlections on the Advantages that might accrue to Great Britain hy a proper Regulation of the Trade of Ireland, wrote in London, 1727. P. 36 — " The situation of Ireland for an extended trade is more advantageous than that of any other nation in Europe. Its harbours are many and commodious, its inhabitants numerous and hardy, inured to want and labour, and able upon poor fare to run through a great deal of work. *' Their near situation renders intercourse between us very easy, and enables us to protect their trade, and to take such care of our interest there as would be almost impossible, had they been more remote. The politeness, the gaiety, the power of our court, allure all those who are studious either of improve- ment, of pleasure, or of preferment. This drains from them the penny-rents of most of the great estates of that kingdom, and every increase of their wealth will (by enlarging the rent- rolls of those already settled here, and by enabling others to taste the delights of a court, who by the narrowness of their present fortunes are confined at home) greatly enlarge this inlet of their money, and increase our drafts upon them, which, together with the restrictions on the exportation of their wool, and the other advantages which we already have of them in 156 APPENDIX, NO. IV. trade, will cause to centre in England all, or the most part of, their acquisitions on the general balance. " I am sensible that the proposition which I here advance is a very bold one ; as it is so opposite to the universally received opinion, that it were better for England if Ireland were no more. But, if we consider (apart from prejudice and particular interests) how greatly we are already gainers by the trade and industry of that country, poor as it is, we shall, perhaps, give into a notion so greatly exploded, and begin to think that the wealth and prosperity of Ireland is not only compatible with that of England, but highly conducing also to its riches, grandeur, and power." The writer of the pamphlet had actually to apologise for thinking that Ireland ought to exist at all, and this although he only contemplated her existence as a means of giving England more plunder ! Referring for all details to the citation that follows, of acts of the English parliament, marking the subsistence of their spu'it of injustice, we crowd together our remaining Enghsh authorities. *' British legislation, on all occasions, controlled Irish com- merce with a very high hand — universally on the principle of monopoly ; as if the poverty of Ireland were her wealth." — Tour of A^'thur Young, 1776-7. " From the Revolution till within these few years, the system had been that of debarring Ireland from the use of her own resources, and making her subservient to the interests and opulence of the English people." — Pitt, 1785. Mr. Dempster (on the same occasion) in the English par- liament, said, that " England had always been miserably jealous of Ireland." On another occasion, Mr. Grenville (afterwards Lord Gren- ville) said, " If England were heavily taxed, she had now, and had had for a whole century past, the benefits of a widely- extended trade, from which she had excluded Ireland — and the latter had already given to England all that she could have made, if by a barbarous and equally absurd policy she had not been debarred from those advantages that God and nature had given her." THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 157 " Ireland had long felt the narrow policy of Great Britain, who, influenced by views of trade and commercial advantage, and stained and perverted with selfish motives, had treated her with partiality and neglect, and never looked on her prosperity as that of the empire at large." — Pitt, 1799. Such beinff some of the principal testimony, up to the similar tes- TT' -nTi 1 inTi n • timony after Union, as to English jealously oi Ireland s prosperity, the umon. there need but two extracts more to show that it has not been denied since. " Is it not well known that, till 1780, the agriculture, internal Industry, manufactures, commerce, and navigation of Ireland, were all held in the most rigid subserviency to the supposed interests of Great Britain? In 1778 there was a proposal to allow her to import sugar direct, and to export every thing but woollens to pay for it ; and this proposal was almost made a question of allegiance by the great towns of Great Britain, and so it was lost! In 1779 a more limited concession to her was also lost ! But towards the close of that year the disasters in North America, and the state of things in Ireland, produced a different feeling in the British parliament — state necessi- ties, acting under a sense of political danger, yielded without grace, that which good sense and good feeling hadj before recommended in vain ; and in 1782, under the like pressure, those concessions were rendered irrevocable." — Mr. HusTcis- son, March 21, 1825. " Ireland was, under our old colonial system, prohibited from any direct trade with British colonies. This system was main- tained with all its vigour till 1780, when, after the close of the American war, it became imperatively necessary to look to the rising spirit of discontent in Ireland, much fomented by the illiberal and unjust policy of this country (England) in respect to commerce. Every liberal relaxation encountered violent opposition, by strong petitions from Manchester, Glasgow, and Liverpool ; the merchants of the latter place said that if Ireland were placed on the same footing with England, the port and town of Liverpool would fall back to its former state." — March 12, 1841 — Labouchere, President of the Board of Trade. Leaving these general testimonies as to England's jea- First con- lousy of oui" commercial progress, we come to details. By the project 158 APPENDIX, NO. IV. of crashing the infamous Lord Strafford, her active hostility in this Insli manu- '' factiires. respect seems to have been evoked. In Wallace's Essay- on the Trade and Manufactures of Ireland (Dublin, 1798), an extract is given from a letter of his, dated July 25, 1636, on the subject of the report he had made to the King and Council, respecting the manufacturing prospects of Ireland. The extract is as follows : — " That there was little or no manufactures among them {soil. the Irish), but some beginnings towards a clothing trade which I had, and so should still discourage all I could, unless other- wise directed by his Majesty and their Lordships, in regard it would trench not only on the clothings of England, being our staple commodity, so as if they should manufacture their own wool, which grew to very great quantities, we (scil. the English) should not only lose the profit we make now by in-draping their wools, but his Majesty lose extremely by his customs. And in conclusion, it might be feared they might beat us out of the trade itself, by underselling us, which they were able to do." He added, that he had endeavoured to turn the attention of the Irish to the manufacture of linen. His interference was utterly unjustifiable. Ireland, like every other nation, had a right to follow whatever manufactures she best liked, or found most convenient. Wool was her natural staple, the material being in excellence and abundance at home. If she afterwards took of her own accord to the more exotic article of linen, there was no reason why she should be confined to that alone. But such was the design, and although Strafford failed, and that the internal dissensions and disorders which pervaded in England for nearly a quarter of a century after, prevented his suggestions being immediately acted upon by England, they were carefully kept in mind, till a favourable concurrence of circum- stances in the very last years of the century, gave her the long-desired opportunity of carrying them into effect. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 159 In the reign of Charles II. began the direct legislative ^.J^^f^^.^. interference with the commercial prospects of Ireland, Jji^t'^eatock which is alluded to in the quotations we have given from "ifactures. English writers and speakers. By the 12 Chas. II. chap. 4, wooiien duties equal to a prohibition were laid in England on the wddentobe rni • T 1 • 1 exported to import of Irish woollen goods. This was little noticed at England. the time, our manufacture, in that respect, not being just then very extensive. But it was the beginning of a cruel system rigorously carried out and persevered in for nearly 120 years, and which speedily and severely forced itself on the notice of the Irish. The act we have mentioned was Attack fol- lowed up; speedily followed up by the 15 Chas. II. chap. 7, (1663,) com prohibiting the import of Irish cattle into England, and simt. all export of value from Ireland to the colonies. Then came the 22 and ^3 Chas. II. chap. 26, (1770,) forbidding import into Ireland of sugar, tobacco, cotton, indigo, steel, Jamaica wood, or fustic, and some other articles from the colonies, unless Jirst unloaded in an English port. This act contains an intimation that its prohibitions had been intended in the act of 1663, but not sufficiently expressed in the clause of the latter act, which forbade import of co- lonial articles from an English port into Ireland, unless the ship had first unloaded in that port. So active was the miserable jealousy that dictated these Aggres- • 1 Ti 1 sion, by and other aararressions upon our commercial uberty, that ^ay of pre- Y , vention of they were, for the greater part, made more to guard against our pros- an anticipated, rather than against any immediately exist- ing success of Irish enterprize. This was particularly the case with the two first of the acts we have mentioned. Our wool manufacture, although certainly making advances, was very far from being in such a flourishing condition in 1660, as to justify the jealous fears of competition with England, that prompted the 12 Chas. II. chap. 4. Nor was the English dread of decrease in the value of land, 160 APPENDIX, NO. IV. from extensive import of Irish cattle better founded, when in 1663 that article of Import was forbidden upon such a pretence. Improve- At the samc time there is no doubt that Ireland was land up to progressing. We have already quoted the testimony of the historian Barlow, to that effect. In 1692, Lord De- puty Sydney, in his speech from the throne to the Irish parliament, bore similar testimony, from his own know- ledge.* Much of this increased prosperity has been attri- buted, and with justice, to James, first Duke of Ormonde. In an excellent publication (the authorship of which is in some doubt), entitled " The Commercial Restraints of Ireland considered," printed in Dublin, in 1779, this noble- man and his efforts are thus spoken of: — Efforts of <( 'Pq jjgg^l ^jjg wound that this country (Ireland) had received the Duke of i ., • • /» i c i i t-i i i t i Ormonde to by the prohibition 01 the export or her cattle to iLngland, L.ora fmp^ove-'^'' Ormonde obtained from Charles II. a letter dated 23rd March, ment. 1667, by which he directed all restraints on export of Irish goods to foreign '\ parts, to be taken off and the import from Scotland of linen, woollen, and other commodities, to be stopped, as drawing large sums out of Ireland. His Grace succesfully executed his schemes of national improve- ment, having by his own constant attention, the exertion of his extensive influence, and the most princely muniflceuce, greatly advanced the woollen, and revived the linen manufactures." Accidental This rcsult was also in some degree accelerated by one impulse to^-, . p.., itfromEng- of thosc vcrv mstauccs of anticipatorij obstruction, on the land herself. /^/-^,-I-,•. i-i i - i part of Great Britain, which we have noticed a couple of paragraphs ago. The particular instance in question was that in which by one part of the act of 1663, Irish cattle were prohibited from being sent into England. The Irish, • Other evidence can be abundantly had — as that of Archbishop King in his State of the Protestants of Ireland ; Lord Chief Justice Keating's Address to James II., and his Letters to Sir John Temple, &c. t The English possessions abroad remaining shut against our commodities. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 161 havinof the Eno^lish mai'ket thus closed for their cattle, turned their attention to increasing and improving their breed of sheep, for the sake of the wool, which they began to manufacture very largely ; and although here again met by the cruel operation of the other part of the same unjust law, which shut their woollen manufactures from the colo- nies, yet foreign exports very considerably increased. The framers and followers out of the cruel policy we are exposing, did not expect this result ; and seeing it, only became the more determined to crush the manufacture in question. This, as we have before noted, and shall presently shew more in detail, they succeeded in doing before the end of the century. By the act 1 William and Mary, chap. 32, while the ^JJl'-J^f,'^,. prohibition was continued against woollen goods from Ire- °^^" interest land, the import of the raw materials from that country into England, which had never been interrupted, was limited to certain ports therein named. This limitation was by no means with a view to prevent or check the Irish raw wool from coming ; for England was very glad to take it to work up herself; but would appear to have been designed in order to ensure the more easy detection of the manufactured article, should an attempt be made to smuggle it, under cover of the free import of the raw material. In the reign of William the aggressions upon us recom- AgKiessiuiis menced by the 7 and 8 Will. III. chap. 22; which '^''''"'"'" ' extended the prohibition of direct import of certain colonial colonies *- _ ■»■ . totally shut. articles into Ireland, enacted in Charles II.'s reign, to all colonial articles whatsoever. In the succeeding year, 1697, oiu- wooiieu ... ... inaiiufac- a bill was openly brought in, m the English parliament, to tures forbid all export from Ireland of her woollen manufactures. It passed the Commons ; but although favourably received in the Lords, and much debated there, it did not pass the Upper House before the dissolution of the parliament, M 162 APPENDIX, NO. IV Details of this iniqui- tous pro- ceeding. Addresses of tlie English Houses of P.arliament to William 111. in 1698, to this ef- fect. Avhich occurred in the July ol" that year. There was very little reclamation against this conduct from the Irish par- liament ; partly because the attention of the latter was a good deal diverted and distracted by the passing of an English act in the previous session, which admitted Irish linens, hemp, and flax into England. But one other cause prevailed. The Irish Catholics (by the infamous breach of the treaty of Limerick, after their gallant army, on the faith of that treaty, had expatriated itself, and so rendered safe the violation of the treaty) were laid prostrate, but were still formidable. The dominant party knew that their only hope of securing and permanently establishing their ascendancy was, by ensuring the constant aid of England ; and to propitiate her, they had to countenance her aggres- sions upon the commercial interests of their country. We will do them the charity to say, that they did so with reluctance, but they did so most certainly. In 1698-9 they not only allowed the long meditated and final blow to descend upon our woollen manufactures ; but, at the impe- rious demand of England, actually gave it strength and certainty themselves, by anticipating the English legisla- ture, and enacting (by the 10 Will. III. chap. 3,) their own disgrace and the commercial ruin of their country ! The English parliament began the matter, bvit as we have said, the so-called Irish parliament anticipated them in its completion. In England it commenced in June, 1698. On the the 9th of that month, the House of Lords addressed King William, stating {English Lords Jour- nals 1698, pp. 314-315.):— That the growing manufactures of cloth in Ireland, both by the cheapness of all sorts of necessaries of life, and goodness of materials for making all manner of cloths, doth invite your sub- jects of England with their families and servants to settle there, to the increase of the woollen manufactures in Ireland ; which makes your loyal subjects in England very apprehensive, that THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 163 the further growth of it may greatly prejudice the said manu- facture here, by which the trade of this nation, and the value of lands will greatly decrease, and the number of your people be much lessened here. Wherefore we humbly beseech your most sacred majesty, that your majesty would be pleased, in the most public and effectual way that may be, to declare to all your subjects of Ireland, that the groivth and increase of the looollen manu- facture there hath long been, and will he ever looked upon with great 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 are very proper, they shall receive all the countenance, favour, and pro- tection from your royal influence for the encouragement and promotion of the linen manufacture, to all the advantage and profit they can be capable of. The address of the Commons was in the following terms : — Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons in Parliament assembled, being very sensible that the wealth and power of this kingdom do in a great measure depend on the preservation of the woollen manufacture, as much as possi- ble, entire to this realm, think it becomes us, like our ancestors, to he jealous of the increase and establishment of it elsewhere, and to use our utmost endeavours to prevent it ; and, there- fore, we cannot without trouble observe that Ireland, which is 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 en- riching to themselves, and so profitable to England,) should of late apply itself to the woollen manufacture, to the great pre- judice of the trade of this kingdom, and so unwillingly promote the linen trade, which would benefit both themselves and us ; the consequence whereof will necessitate your Parliament of Eng'land to interpose to prevent the mischief that threatens us, unless your majesty, by your authority and great wisdom, shall find means to secure the trade of England, by making your subjects of Ireland to pursue the joint interests of both king- doms. And we do most humbly implore your Majesty's protec- tion and favour in this matter, that you will make it your royal M 2 I(i4 APPENDIX, NO. IV. His answer. False state- ments of these addresses. care, and enjoin all those you employ in Ireland, to make it their care, and use their utmost diligence, to hinder the ex- portation of wool from Ireland, except to be imported hither, and to discourage the woollen manufacture, and encourage the linen manufactures, of Ireland, to which we shall always be ready to give our utmost assistance. King William gave the following reply to the House of Commons : — / shall do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen manufacture in Ireland, and to encourage the linen manufac- ture there, and to promote the trade of England. In these addresses there were three false averments : first, that Ireland Avas more fitted for linen than for woollen manufacture ; second, that the latter was recently set up ; and third, that its establishment in Ireland was of great prejudice to English interests. As to the first — which is rather suggested than distinctly stated — its inconsistency with truth cannot for a moment be doubted, when we recollect that Ireland had the raw material for woollen manufacture in abundance and excel- lence at home. Not so in the case of linen. Flax-seed, the foundation of the material, was to be imported ; its culture here was always precarious, owing to the humidity of the climate. And again, wool employed more hands, and yielded a greater profit to the public and to the manu- facturer — considerations, of course, of great importance in any country, but particularly so in one so imfortunately circumstanced as Ireland. Anderson, in his History of Commerce, vol. iii, p. 194, remarks as folloAVS on this point : — It requires about 20 acres of land to breed wool for setting at work the same number of hands which one acre of flax would employ ; and yet in the end, the woollen manufacturer •will be found to employ by far the greater number of hands, and yield the most profit. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 165 The second averment, to the effect that the Irish had only recently taken up this manufacture, can be quickly disposed of. A glance at the report of the commissioners of enquiry into the condition of the hand-loom Aveavers, printed in 1840, by order of the House of Commons, will give, on parliamentary authority, the fact of Irish woollen goods being in demand and high repute in foreign countries, so early as 1357. Anderson's History of Commerce records several successive notices of this manufacture in acts of parliament, or otherwise, during the succeeding three centuries. In 1 655, it was mentioned along Avith the wool manufacture of England herself, in one of the articles of a treaty then negociating between Cromwell and the min- isters of Louis XIV. And Avherever mentioned, whether in the many acts of parliament of both countries relative to the subject, or in treaties, or by individual writers, it is spoken of as a manufacture of good foreign demand, and giving abundant employment at home. The third averment, viz. — that of injury to British in- terests, had no foundation in the existing state of matters. Adam Smith, in his " Memoirs of Wool," (vol. 2, p. 244,) states, " that though the amount was increasing, yet, that the Irish in 1698 had not recovered one-third of the wooU len trade which they had before the war." No market could be shewn from which Ireland had excluded England as to woollens, or where she was even a notable competitor. No proof was attempted of the allegation in any one way. The English commissioners of trade did indeed (in 1698) report that the difference between wool and labour in the two countries respectively, amounted to an advantage for Ireland of one-third ; and that to reduce Irish woollens to an equality with British, so high as 44 per cent, might be laid on the former above what was on the latter in export duties. But in the proof of this they utterly failed, not- 106 APPENDIX, NO. IV. withstanding which failure, such was the remorseless and reckless selfishness of the English parliament, and the interested obsequiousness of what was called the Irish parliament, that crushing duties were laid on all Irish woollens, (except friezes before taken off the loom,) and of all materials, and everything used in working up the material, even to the working utensils ! r"m\^etter ^^ pursuaucc of his reply. King William wrote irame- govenimin'J valent tor more unfounded than a notion very prevalent with English *{|^ '°ooi'^g„ writers, and adopted by some Irish, to the effect that the linen manufacture was left us as an equivalent for the taking away of that of woollens. In the first place, why should a country be restricted from any manufacture, in which its inhabitants might consider they could profitably embark ? In the next place a manufacture that co-existed with another, can scarcely be considered a proper and real equivalent for the destruction of that other. If a robber deprive his victim of a portion of the contents of his purse, and leave him the remainder, that remainder would not be considered by the victim, or by any body else, as an equivalent for what was taken away. It is true, the linen manufacture had not gone so far as the woollen, but that very circumstance ought to have been an additional reason not to confine Ireland to it alone. Desirous, when practicable, to quote from documents of co-exist- the present day, particularly from such as have received both. the parliamentary stamp of acceptance, we insert the fol- lowing, taken indifferently from the reports of Messrs. Otway and Muggeridge, assistant-commissioners. In a curious little poem written in tlie reign of Henry VI., Report r. about the year 1430, by Haklayt, iu the enumeration of the i^ge^^Esq^"^" commodities of every country, he mentions the linen-cloth of Ireland. In 1533, the act 24 Henry VIII. chap. 4, required "every Handioom person occupying 60 acres of tilled land to sow a quarter of an enquiiy. acre yearly in flax or hemp, for the purpose of protecting and encouraging the linen manufacture by an adaquate supply of the raw material." The linen-trade was enumerated as one of the principal Report of branches of Irish manufacture, in the thirty-third of Henry way, Esq. VIII., 1542 In an act of the thirteenth year of Eliza- beth's reign, it was recited, that Irishmen had been exporters of 172 APPENDIX, NO. IV. linen for more than 100 years Lord Strafford adopted extensive measures to encourage the linen manufacture. He sent to Holland for flax-seed, and to the Netherlands for compe- tent workmen. To animate others, he embarked in the business £30,000 of his private fortune. (N.B. This '' private fb7'tune" mainly consisted of his liotfs share of the plunder of Ireland.) But the troubles that then broke out, put a stop to the enter- prize. The Duke of Ormond, Charles the Second's lieutenant, sought to revive it, and procured several acts for its encourage- ment, and for inviting Protestant strangers to settle in the kingdom. He sent Irishmen to be instructed in the details of the linen manufacture in Flanders, and brought over 500 Bra- bant families, expert in the business, and also operatives from Rochelle, the Isle of Khe, Jersey, &c., &c His example was followed by many others, and Lord Dungannon, in Ulster, gave encouragement with great success to the Scotch settlers. Laurence, in his work, entitled "the Interest of Ireland," published in 1682, says, " My opinion is, that there is not a greater quantity of linen produced in the like circuit in Europe," &c., &c. The linen manufacture, then, having co-existed with the ■woollen, could not properly be an equivalent for the latter, and above all, when, as we have before remarked, it was a more difficult, costly, and uncertain manufacture ; and also one yielding much less employment. Did Eng- But sucli as it was, did England do her part towards her promise the so-callcd international agreement of 1688-9? She to favour i i i i our linen "was to encoura^e our linens, and the declaration oi her trade? . Houses of Parliament to that effect in 1698, were taken as decisive assurances of her determination to follow out the policy indicated in an act of 1696, the 7 & 8 Will. III. chap. 39, which recited " that great sums of money were yearly exported out of England for the purchasing of hemp, flax, and linen, and the productions thereof," which might be prevented by being supplied from Ireland ; and therefore natives of England and Ireland were to be allowed to " im- port into England, free of all duties, hemp, flax, linen, and all the productions thereof" THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. ' 173 No further encouragement, however, was given in this ^^^f,\7o'r respect until the year 1705, when the act 3 & 4 Anne, « y'^'^''"- chap. 8, passed, allowing us to export our white and brown linens to the colpnies — a thing which, before the 15 Chas. II. chap. 7, we could do with all our commodities, and Avhich proved nugatory as to benefit now, inasmuch as the restraint on our imports from those colonies prevented inter- change, and thereby most seriously crippled the trade that otherwise might have taken, place. This restraint on our imports from the colonies had, as we have seen, originated in 1670, by the 22 & 23 Chas, II. chap. 26, and applied to a number of valuable commodities. But its scope was enlarged, and made to include all com- modities by an act in 1696, the 7 & 8 Will. III. chap. 22. It is true these acts allowed us to get colonial commo- dities still, but not unless first unloaded and then taken on board again in an English port, and carried in an English vessel. Any encouragement really given by England to our And then linen manufacture, was directly with a view to her own ^^Jt'^ a view •' to her o\\Ti benefit — of ours she was little regardful. A duty was in- interest. deed placed upon foreign linen, but it was allowed to be di'awn back again on exportation from England, and the drawback was found in practice to operate as a premium upon German and Russian linens. The bounties given later on the export of Irish linens from England, were con- fined to those of \s. 3c?. per yard, and if stamped, they forfeited the bounty, althovigh allowed to German stamped linens. The retailing and stamping of our linens in Eng- land gave great employment there ; and the bounty on Irish export to England was in fact an advantage to the British merchant, as he got into his own hands the business of the re-exportation to foreign countries, to which Ireland ceased to export direct. 174 APPENDIX, NO. IV. fuabiVkinds ^^ little WRs England really disposed to keep her pro- of our unena shut out as before from colo- nies and plantations- mise, that our linens painted, striped, chequered, printed* hin™ ^"^ stained, or dyed, were practically excluded by her so early as 1711, by the act 10 Anne, chap. 19, which was directed against all such linens made in foreign parts, and was, by -a strained construction made to apply to Ireland. The striped, chequered, &c. linens of the latter country were thus shut out (we have used the word ^^practically" in the preceding paragraph, as the import duties of 30 per cent, imposed by the 10th of Anne, and confirmed by the 11 & 12 Anne, chap. 9, amounted, in practice and eifect, to an exclusion) from England ; and, by the Navigation Act, 15 Car. II. chap. 7, had before been excluded from America and the British West Indies, into which latter they were not admitted until 1777-8, when the British act 18 Geo. III. chap. 55^ passed, allowing them to go there, but without the advantage of the bounty on export, given to similar goods from England to all parts of the world, by an act dated eight years earlier. The admission then allowed was of little practical value, as the restric- tions on direct import from the colonies still existed as to many important articles, and of course rendered the colo- nists very indifferent as to commerce with us. Advantage Wc got Indeed, nominally^ equal bounties on export to and bro^vn foreign countrics of her white and brown linens, by the England 14 Gco. II. chap. 29, but the benefit was infinitely less to us than to England, as we could only get that bounty by exporting from an English port, and the expense of freight, insurance, commission, &c., in this first transit of our linens was computed to deduct 4, and sometimes even 5 or 6 per cent, from the 12 per cent, amount of the premium, whei"eas the English manufacturer, having comparatively no preliminary charges, was not subject to deductions. We are by no means done with the exposure of the de- over ours. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 175 lusion respecting English encouragement of our linen- trade, our market ••'-'<-' '^ at her corn- While England took away her OAvn market, and that of '"""'i ^°^' . O •' ' everyspecies every part of the globe in which she held power, from our chisrto*^^ chequered, &c., linens, she endeavoured to deprive them ™'"i»'''i<=- ture. even of our own home market. This she in a great de- gree accomplished, owing to the inefficiency of the duty on her chequered, striped, &c., linens coming into Ireland. It was no more than 10 per cent, ad valorem, and the linen not valued. The power which she had until 1782, of con- trolling our legislation, by the necessity we were under of submitting all projects of law for the approval of the En- glish privy-council, before discussion in the Irish parlia- ment, of course enabled her to prevent all attempts at even making the existing duty effectual. But England had the benefit of a bounty in addition, and its effects were not only to increase the advantage of English linens of the above kind over those of Ireland, but by raising the price of yarn, to inflict a heavy dis- couragement on all species of Irish linens. A committee of the Irish Commons reported in 1771, "on the linen manufactures of Ireland, and her title to encouragement thereof," and Ave take the following from one of the papers laid before them by the Trustees of the Linen Manufac- ture : Cheques and striped linens, such as are exported, are gene- rally made of yarn, about 10^. or lie?, value in the pound, great part of which is imported into Britain from Ireland ; and as lib. of yarn will, on a medium, make upwards of three yards of those cheques or striped goods, a bounty of \(l. per yard is a premium of upwards of 1 \d. on the pound of yarn, in favour of the ma- nufacturer in Britain over the manufacturer in Ireland, from which bounty the Irish cheques, striped or printed linens, &c., are totally excluded, their importation into Britain being pro- hibited. Meantime England had before secured her market for her other linens. This w%as done by the 3 Geo. I. chap. 176 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 21, passed in 1716, whereby the act of the 3 & 4 Anne, allowing export of our linens to the colonies, was enacted to be continued " so long as the merchants and others of Great Britain shall be permitted to import into Ireland^ free of all duties, white and broicn linen-cloth."* her pro- Thus, SO far as we have gone, we have seen that Eng- land not only deprived us of the manufacture most suited to us, viz., the Avoollen, and made us confine ourselves to the more expensive and precarious manufacture of linen, but she virtually broke her promise of peculiar encourage- ment to that, by not passing one law in its favour that she did not give the benefit of, in more ample measure, to her- self, and by keeping the Irish market open for her own linens, while she crippled and restricted the entry of those of Ireland into her market. Our sail- She did yet more than this to benefit her own interest cloth manu- . . "^ facture des- m this branch, at the expense of Ireland. By an act of the year 1750, the 23rd Geo. II. chap. 32, she heavily taxed the import of sail-cloth made of Irish hemp. The consequence to us was this; that whereas in 1750 we exported more sail-cloth than we imported, matters so changed, that in 1784 we were exporting none, and im- ported 180,000 yards. And for several years after, Eng- land herself reaped no benefit from this wanton injury to us, as the trade thus lost to the Irish, fell into the hands of the Russians, Germans, and Dutch,t notwithstanding three or four acts encouraging the manufacture in England and Scotland. Again, lest by any possibility Ireland should reap much benefit from the act of 1742, (delusive as it was to a great extent,) which gave bounties on the export of Irish, * Clause 4 of this act transferred to the Crown, that portion of the penalties in former acts, on export of Irish wool, which had previously been applied " to the encouragement of the linen manufacture of Ireland ! f See Journals, H. Com. Ireland, years 1774—1784. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 177 as well as English linens, exported from Enfrland, an act further o 'A o ' restriction of the year 1756, the 29 Geo. II. chap. 15, provided, that °n«^"'""«" no Irish linen so exported should be entitled to the bounty, if it were the property of a resident in Ireland ! But it was not alone her own linen trade which England Enconrnge- " ment of encouraged, and gave advantages to, beyond what she did ^''^'^^ to redeem her engagement of fostering that of Ireland. The Scotch were also brought into the field, to compete with the Irish in that trade. This was immediately a necessity of the times after the union Avith Scotland, when it was important to do all that could be done, to calm down the irritation in that countiy, produced by the carrying of that measure. Accordingly a portion of the sum given to Scotland, under the terms of the Act of Union, as an " equivalent" for her assuming joint fiscal responsibility with England, was specially allocated for the encouragement of her manu- factures, including her linen.* Special legislation for the same purpose followed, parti- cularly by the Act 13 Geo. I. chap. 26 ; and from thence- * This grant, given under the act of Scotch Union, and confirmed and explained by the 13 Geo. I. chap. 30, was of the amount of £2000 a very large sum at that time to so exceedingly poor a country as Scotland. It was to be an annuity redeemable at any time by the English parliament, on payment of £40,000. What occurred ? The ' ' Board of Commissioners for the encouragement of Scottish Manufactures," which was created for the management of this fund, "did not begin operations till 1727; by which time (i. e. 20 years from the Union) £40,000 had accumulated, on which, after termination of the series of years. Government have, ever since, paid £2000 a year as interest." The words in inverted commas are from a letter written in February, 1841, by Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, " Secretary to the Royal Board of manufactures, Edinburgh," addressed to "J. R. Mai- let, Esq. Capel-street, Dublin," and published, it is to be supposed, with the consent of both gentlemen, in the Dublin papers of the above month. One thing seems to be omitted in Sir T. Lauder's statement, viz that the "series of years" which he speaks of, was only determinable on the pay- ment of £40,000. Now as he states that this series did terminate, it fol- lows, that, not only have the Scotch manufacturers had the benefit of the annual £2000 for 116 years ; but that while yet in their infancy, they got in a lump sum, £40,000. (See section 14 of the Act 13 Geo. L chap. 30.) 178 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Ibrward every advantage which England gave her own linen and hempen manufactures, she gave equally to those of Scotland ; and therefore of course placed those of the latter in the same position of advantage as her own, over the similar manufactures of Ireland. Nay, in 1 753, she gave the Scotch an advantage to some degree over herself, by the act 26 Geo. II. chap. 20, which withdrew the ex- port bounty on English and Irish coarse linens, and enacted that £3000 a year for nine years should be given as bounty upon that export from Scotland. ^HhftTot ^^^^' complaint is not against the abstract fact of Scot- vourTo's^eot- ^^^^'^ bciug brought into the field as a competitor with |f„"'?j,|^"'p. us. No such false view of political economy, or social jus- pression of ^j^^^ jg ^^kcn in Ireland, as that either of the other portions of the empire should be, or should have been, debarred from seeking their national prosperity, by all the means placed at their disposal by the bounteous providence of heaven. Our proper and real ground of complaint is, that we should have been deprived of one manufacture, while the other portions of the empire were left at liberty to pursue it, as well as all other branches of industry, circum- ]Vir. Assistant Commissioner Otway, in his report on stances that ^ ^ -' _^_ '- |aciiitated ^.lie haud-loom weavers' commission, (part iii. February, m°anufa°c"'^ 1840,) has ascribcd to its true cause, the rapidity with dn^t"!'" which before the mere breath of the legislature, Irish manufactures, though long established, and apparently vigorous in growth, declined and disappeared. His re- marks on this subject well merit perusal, and therefore we insert them at length, although that length is consi- derable for our limits, and that we do not altogether con- cur in one or two of the positions laid down by him : — One great and fatal error in the system of colonization to ■which I have adverted was, that it became a fixed principle of THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 179 policy to exclude the native Irish from the benefits of all the improved arts introduced by the new settlers. It had been found, that the Anglo-Norman lords who had obtained estates from the Plantagenets, became, in the course of time, alienated from English allegiance and usages ; to use the phrase of the day, they were " Hibernis ipsis Hiherniores." To prevent such a result from the new settlement was perversely regarded as an object of greater importance than the settlement itself ; it was said to be essentially necessary "to preserve and main- tain an English Interest in Ireland." But for the unhappy diiference of ;jeligion between the settlers and the natives, this exclusive system would not have been long maintained ; the Irish and the English would gradually have amalgamated, like the Normans and the Saxons ; but the distinction of religion gave strength and permanence to the distinction of race, and rendered the line of demarcation scarcely less broad than if it bad been perpetuated by difference of colour and physical organization. The hand-loom weavers, the wool-combers, the clothiers, the dyers, the white-smiths, and even the mariners, in the South of Ireland, were so exclusively Protestant, that they would not allow a Roman Catholic apprentice to be received in any of their trades. The only branch of manufactures permitted to the " mere Irish" was that of brogues or common shoes ; and even this trade was not permitted to be carried on within the precincts of walled towns. Hence, these manufactures were, and continued to be, exotics ; they struck no root in the soil. The early settlers were long a flourishing and numerous body. In 1689 William and Mary were proclaimed in several small towns in Munster ; and the Protestant artizans raised a respectable army to resist James. At an earlier period the desertion of the royal cause by the Munster Protestants, under Lord Broghill and Inchiquin, was the principal cause of the easy conquest by Cromwell. It may be added, that James II., in his letters, ascribes his failures in Ireland to the fact that the Protestants alone understood the art of making and mend- ing gun-locks, and that in consequence he never was able to keep his partizans supplied with serviceable arms. During the reigns of William and Anne this exclusion of the Irish from all manufactures was rigorously continued ; but to compensate for this, great encouragement was given to the immigration of foreign Protestants, especially the Huguenots, who had fled from France on the revocation of the edict of N 2 180 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Nantes. The bigotry of Louis the XIV. upset the magnificent schemes of his minister, Colbert, by the expulsion of his Hu- g-uenot subjects ; and numbers of these men brought their arts, their industry, their capital, and their faith into Ireland — they established several branches of trade in various parts of the country — the woollen manufacture in the South — linens and cambrics in the Counties of Down and Armagh, and the silk manufacture in Dublin. In support of these refugees, and the arts they carried with them, the Irish landed proprie- tors were very active — a subscription was raised, as appears from Primate Boulter's letters, for establishing the cambric manufacture in the town of Dundalk, amounting to £30,000, and a Monsieur De Joncourt was appointed to collect French' operatives, and conduct the establishment. But the Huguenots adopted the baneful system of exclusion, and exerted themselves to prevent the Irish from learning their arts or profiting by their industry. The Duke of Ormond, following the example of the Earl of Cork, also prohibited the instruction of Roman Catholic apprentices, as did the principal landholders, who en- couraged foreigners to settle on their estates. Now this exclusive system at once destroyed the basis of all manufacturing prosperity — the home market. The fabrics intro- duced by the English and French settlers were of a superior quality, for which the native Irish could only gradually acquire a want, as they were raised in the scale of civilization. But instead of thus raising them, the foreign manufacturers, aided by the legislature, employed every possible means to depress them, and thus blindly drove from their market a whole nation of customers, and confined them to the use of the rude and cheap fabrics which were woven amongst themselves. The manufacturers were thus forced to rely on their foreign trade ; but here they came into competition with the English merchants, and aroused the spirit of commercial jealousy. The act of William, prohibiting the export of Irish wool and woollens, destroyed the Irish woollen manufactures, simply because they depended almost solely on foreign sale for their support. There was no independent peasantry, or respectable wealthy and middle class, for them to supply. The Irish legislature saw this decline of manufactures, but could not discover a remedy ; it attempted to supply the want of a home market by bounties, duties, and premiums. These of course aggravated the evil. The manufacturers looked to the premiums and the parliament, instead of their own industry and THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 181 the market, and expected that customers could be created by a statute. The manufactures in most places sunk by the sure process of gradual decay. Even where they maintained a lin- gering existence, the fabrics they produced became greatly deteriorated in quality. It may be asked why the manufactures of the North did not share the same fate of those of the South ; but the question is easily solved by a glance at the state of the population in the pro- vince of Ulster. The settlement in Ulster was more complete and extensive than that in any other part of Ireland. The natives had been either wholly exterminated or driven into mountainous and remote districts. The landlords and tenants in the manufacturing districts of the North thus belong to one class ; they did not regard each other as hereditary enemies ; there was no legacy of oppression on one side, and revenge on the other. The Ulster tenant felt (and feels) he had a pro- perty in his farm — something on the earth he could call his own ; and the fruits of his industry would be allowed to accu- mulate into a small capital, and in point of fact, such an accu- mulation did take place ; for the greater part of the capital in the linen manufactures of Ulster, was derived from the savings of agricultural industry, and hence arose the numerous class who were each at the same time a farmer, a weaver, and a linen- dealer (jobber). In the south of Ireland the title to pro- perty was unsettled ; for more than a century confiscation and re-confiscation followed each other, until the Acts of Settlement and Explanation secured the followers of Cromwell in their estates ; there was no community of feeling or interest between the proprietor and the occupants brought about by these acts. The great object was to establish an English interest in Ire- land ; and to accomplish this hereditary policy, the two last Stuarts, while they patronised Roman Catholics in their own courts, rigorously maintained the new Protestant proprietary in the South of Ireland. It was not until James the 2nd was driven from England, that he would allow even of an enquiry into the Act of Settlement, and it is doubtful whether he would have consented, even in Dublin, to its repeal, if a large portion of the re-confiscations had not reverted to the crown. The repeal of the Irish Act of Settlement by the parliament of James the 2nd, gave the Protestant proprietors a fright from which they have not perfectly recovered even to this day : since that time they have been persuaded that every change of policy, or isolated disturbance, threatens their titles ; they deem that they 182 APPENDIX, NO. IV. only g-arrison their estates, and thei-efore they look upon the native occupants (I cannot call them tenants) as persons ready to eject them upon a favourable opportunity. Hence, the Munster landlord was afraid to give the persons who occupied his ground a permanent hold upon the land, or a beneficial interest in its occupancy. The old struggle of title, in natural course, produced the new contest of tenure ; and Captain Rock and Lady Clare were as legitimately descended from the Catholic lords of the pale, as Jack Straw and Wat Tyler were from the Saxon thanes who fought at Hastings. There is, and until the relations between landlord and occupant are altered, there can be no accumula- tion oj" savings in the South oj" Ireland from agricultural in- dustry — and hence there was not and can be no spontaneous growth of manufactures from small capitals. Another reason for the greater prosperity of the linen manu- facture in the North of Ireland is, that in Ulster a moderate modus was established for the tithe of the flax ; but all efforts to have the same modus extended to the rest of Ireland were defeated by the pertinacious opposition of the ecclesiastical au- thorities. Without at all entering on the general question of tithe, or the policy of taxing the raw materials of industry, it is enough to state that the impost on flax proved to be so heavy, that the farmers found it to be an unprofitable crop, and it was never cultivated, except in very small patches, in the South of Ireland. In the present day the principal impediments to the growth of manufactviring industry arise from the want of a comfortable middle class, and the condition of the agricultural population. iiijuiytothe Jq ^U tlils iiiass of rational remark, and clear-headed cause ot ' the'ont-™ tracing out of cause and effect, it is singular that there to'm/impe- should be only one sentence given to those active efforts uament. ^f English commercial jealousy, the facile and successful operation of which he so well attributes, in the main, to the narrow basis to which sectarian bigotry restricted our manufactures. The reason of his avoidance of this topic, must simply have been, because his report was to be pre- sented to an English parliament. Ever since the Union, this circumstance has exercised an influence most inju- THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 183 rious to the interests of Ireland, and of truth and justice, over the reports of committees and commissioners of enquiry, into matters affecting the international relations between the two countries. Mr. Otway's report is one of the very few honorable exceptions, in Avhich that influ- ence has not been allowed to extend as far as the snggestio falsi, however partly chargeable with the omissio veri. The unavoidable length to which we have already gone nesessitates as brief a handling as possible, of the remain- der of our subject. The commercial iealousy of England was consistent England's •^ •' c jealousy throughout. We have seen that our woollen goods were consistent. practically excluded from her ports, while she had the command of ours. Nay she had been able to obtain from the Irish parliament in 1662, before the first fervour of its interested loyalty after the restoration of Charles II. had subsided, the prohibition by the Irish Act 14 and 15 Exercised Chas. II. chap. 8, of foreign woollen goods in Irish ports ; woo'iiens"^"^ a concession in her favour that her conduct two years before, in shutting her ports to our woollens, very little deserved. But the same miserable spirit actuated that parliament as prevailed in that of King William — namely, that of making any sacrifice of national interests to obtain security for their own particular interests ; so many of its members being persons who had acquired their properties by rapine and murder, in the time of Cromwell's blood- stained rule over Ireland. We have also seen how scarcely even colourable the Against our promise to encourage our linen manufacture was proved to be. The historian Barlow well denominates it as " moonshine" and says that " England departed from the letter and the spirit of that compact." — (vol. i. chap. 10.) By the Acta 15 Chas. II. chap. 5 ; 3 and 4 Anne, cotions. chap. 4 ; 4 and 5 William and Mary, chap. 5 ; Irish cotton hops. 184 APPENDIX, NO. IV. manufactures were subjected to 25 per cent, on import into England ; and lest this enormous charge should not be enough to exclude them, the Act 7 Geo. I. chap. 7, enacted penalties on the wearing of any such manufactures in Great Britain, unless there made. On the other hand, British cottons went into Ireland in immense quantities at only 10 per cent. Beer and Irish bccr and malt were excluded from Enarland, and malt. o ' her beer and malt sent into Ireland at almost a nominal Import of duty. The 9th Anne, chap. 12, prohibited us from im- porting hops from any other place but Great Britain, styling such importation "a public and common nuisance." So determined Avere the English parliament that we should not otherwise be supplied in this particular, that when the prohibition of direct importation from the colonies and plantations of colonial goods was first relaxed, (which it was by the 4th Geo. II. chap. 16, passed in 1805, and declared to be so passed,) not on account of the hardship of the previous restrictions to us, but of ^^ great prejudice to the trade and navigation of Great Britain and the said colonies" a statute was specially passed the year afterwards, (viz. the 5th Geo. II. chap 2,) declaring that the trifling relaxation enacted by the before-mentioned act should not be construed to allow hops into Ireland from those quarters, and four years afterwards the 7th Geo. II. chap. 19, further enforced and strengthened the restrictions. This injustice will appear gross, and yet it is not all stated. Not only were we prevented supplying ourselves with hops elsewhere than from England, but the duty on their export from thence Avas not allowed to be drawn back in favour of the Irish consumer, and the money thus most unfairly wrung from him, was appropriated to the payment of an English debt ! THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 185 The exclusion of our cattle, by the act of 1663, has been ^^p°^°^ *^ Cattle* mentioned before. It had not indeed excluded them in words, but the high duties then enacted, operated as a prohibition, and, with the additional precaution that marked the carrying out of all these injustices, another act was passed shortly after, (the 18th Chas. II. chap. 2,) specially, and in terms, prohibiting our cattle, and declaring that their import into England was " a public and common nuisance !" We have before given an extract from Anderson, vol. xi. p. 645, describing these laAvs as unwise, and now quote him again. Ireland is really a mine of treasure to Great Britain, and is so perhaps in a much greater degree than our American plan- tations ; since so much of what is gained in Ireland, centres at length in Britain. Every severe step taken by us with regard to Ireland, has been advantageous to our foreign rivals. It is now clearly seen that the prohibition of live cattle from Ireland, in order to raise the price of our lands, was not well-judged. Even the restrictive laws on the woollen manufactures of Ireland forced the Irish workmen to settle in France ; and thereby laid the foundation for the great woollen manufactures of that kingdom. It is instructive to observe, in these and other extracts we have given, the quiet way in which every thing is argued for, and on account of, English interests ; those of Ireland being totally left out of the question. This of course is natural ; but is also very significant. The English parliament excluded our cattle, but it was the wish of the English people to have them ; and accord- ingly " they set about defeating the intentions of the legis- lature." This is proved by the confessions in the angry preambles of successive acts passed to enforce those of 1663 and 1666. At length the legislature had to give way under this pressure ; and Irish cattle, and the provisions. 186 APPENDIX, NO. IV. &c., manufactured from them, (which also had been ex- cluded by an act of 1680,) were, in the reign of George the 2nd, admitted again into England; at first temporarily, but the acts opening the ports to them were continually and easily renewed. otiieimis- Hats, glass, gunpowder, coals, bar-iron, iron- ware, and cellaneous ^ ox /.i.ttitii articles. sevcral other matters, some of which Ireland had not to export, and others of which she had very little, were at different times the objects of English restrictions ; when- soever it was fancied that English interests were at all threatened by them. One of the most important of these articles, was that of glass ; which, by an act of the 19 th year of George the 2nd, Ireland was prohibited from im- porting from any country but Great Britain, and could not export the article at all. Ai8osiik. In addition to the discouragements affecting our silk manufacture, in common with our other manufactures, it had the further discouragement, that coming to us as the raw material did, through England, the sum of three-pence in the pound was retained there, of the original import duty in that country; and the price thereby so much enhanced to lis — in addition to the benefit, at our expense, to the English revenue. Tiie results It was impossible for a country thus hampered and affected not , ., ., .... only Ire- rcstrictcd, uot only m every point where competition with land,butthe , . , t p i • i i n im i i British coio- hcr jcalous and poweriul neighbour was at ail likely, but rossessions. in many where the apprehension of it Avas utterly without foundation, to make any real advances towards commercial prosperity. From the British possessions in both hemis- pheres, she was shut out, (from the East Indies by a clause in the 7th George I., chap. 21, but practically before,) as although she still could import their commodities through England, the trade was unable to bear the delays and ex- pense of the double journey. These restraints were ulti- THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 187 mately injurious to the British possessions ; as Ireland, unable to supply herself from them, had to get from foreign countries the materials for ship-building, some of those articles used in perfecting her staple manufacture, and other valuable imports. But of course the weight of the injury was upon Ireland, and to it was owing her poverty and embarrassments of the greater part of the eighteenth century. We have quoted, at an early period of this article, J^^ference to T- ' J i. ^ testimonies, authorities as to the prosperity of Ireland previous to the ^u/°to^ire"' destruction of her natural staple, the woollen manufacture. '^''• After that the story Avas different. In the session of 1703, the Irish Commons laid before Queen Anne a true state of the deplorable condition of the country. They complained of vast decay and loss of its trade — its being almost ex- hausted of coin — of the poor having become very numerous — of the foreign trade and its returns being under such restrictions and discouragements as to be then become impracticable ; although the kingdom of Ireland had by its blood and treasure contributed to secure the jAantation trade to the people of Ejigland. At the end of the session, Mr. Speaker Brodrick (after- wards Lord Chancellor) declared in his speech to the Lord Lieutenant, that the representations made by the Commons were their unanimous voice ; and that they hoped they might be allowed such a proportion of trade, that they may recover from the great poverty they now lie under. (Irish Com. Jour. 3 vol. pp. 149 — 208.) In the journals of the Irish Commons from thencefor- ward till within the last 20 years of the eighteenth century, will be found declaration after declaration, admission after admission, complaint after complaint, of the poverty and wretchedness of Ireland — the want of employment among her people — the Avretched condition of her trade — the con- 188 APPENDIX, NO. IV, sequent inability of the country to support her public burthens — and the cruelty of the restrictions that fettered and crippled her industry. Scarcely two years elapsed during the interval we have mentioned, without some of these disheartening records. The Irish parliament was impotent to redress the evils whose existence they thus recorded, not only as contained in resolutions and remon- strances of their own, but as admitted and acknowledged in speeches to them from the vice-throne. They were then under the fetters of Poyning's law, and the acts confirm- ing it ; and no bill for effectual relief of these distresses, by opening up the restricted and impeded sources of indus- try, would get the sanction of the English Privy Council, to which the laws in question compelled every legislative project to be submitted for approval, ere it could be intro- duced into the Irish parliament. This was the state of things until 1780—2. But we need not delay upon this part of our subject, when we have the strong English testimony bearing upon it, with which this article commences. tti*e iinL°^ Meantime the linen manufacture undoubtedly increased ; manufac- ]j^^j^ therc was little of natural vigour and stability about it. What progress it did make was mainly owing to the unre- mitting care and attention of the Irish parliament, so far as lay in their power; and to the impulse it received by the large immigration of foreign Protestants, versed in the ma- nufacture, who were driven from France by the execrable revocation of the edict of Nantes. In the hand-loom weavers' report it is stated, that the Irish parliament, from 1700 up to 1777, expended in the encouragement of the linen trade, the sum of £1,295,560. In the speeches from the vice-throne to the Irish par- liament throughout the century, exhortations to the en- couragement of that trade, coupled, as it invariably was. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 189 with that of the Protestant charter schools — the phrase being, "those sources of honest industry and pure religion," are to be found as regularly recurring as the " phrases banales" of royal speeches in our own days respecting the " assurances from foreign powers," and the " economy" with which the " estimates are framed." The decisive proof, were such wanted, that the linen trade was not a healthy natural effort of the industry of the country, and exercising a genial influence on the national prosperity, is given by the very fact of its having required this constant encouragement and attention. To the enumeration in detail of English injuries to our Additional '-' '' injustice of trade, Ave have unfortunately to add one striking instance, England. general in its effect. From 1740 to 1759 there were no less than 24 embargoes in Ireland ! One of these lasted three years — viz., from 1776 to 1779, when L'ish provi- sions were restrained from being sent any where, but into England — nor was this altogether relaxed even in the latter year, as they were still restrained from being sent to America, the West Indies, or indeed any place out of Europe. Thus, by all possible means — namely, by direct and actively oppressive legislation — by false interpretation and forced construction of laws supposed to have no such object — by real breach under a seeming observance of interna- tional engagements — and even by an unconstitutionid exer- cise of the prerogative, Irish industry and enterprize were cruelly restrained and repressed to the verge of ruin. We now approach the time when England had to retrace Remarks. -r. 1 , . f, 1st, Oiu- re- her steps. Ere, however, leaving the first branch of our ^^s^mh dia- 111 cord enabled subject, Ave Avould make two sliort remarks. The first is, hertotyran- . njze. that the wretched history we have been detailing, ought to make an impression upon every honest Irishman, and warn him from that execrable religious discord which so divided 190 APPENDIX, NO. IV. the nation against itself, as to render it incapable of re- sisting these monstrous outrages. 2n(i, She ai- Seconclly, it is to be remarked generally on the conduct lowed us to •' o ./ follow the of Enorland towards the only manufacture she allowed us linen ti"aae ~ J horpila-'"^ any freedom in following, viz. the linen, that what freedom sure. g]^g gave, it was little other than that which the cat gives the mouse ; whom she releases for an instant, certain of being able to put her paw on it when she pleases. Eng- land was not inclined towards the linen manufacture herself at the close of the 17 th century, and to remove a rival in the woollen, had no objection to alloAV Ireland to follow the former ; reserving to herself, as we have seen, advan- tages over the Irish linens, (not only by restrictions and cramping regulations of our export, and greater bounties and facilities in that respect for herself, but also by the complete command of our ports,) so as that whenever her own manufacturers should please to turn their attention to linen, they would have little need to dread Irish competi- tion. In either country the woollen manufacture was the natural staple. In either it was the most profitable. The similarity of climate rendered flax-seed an equally precarious crop in both countries — and in both it was of course a crop equally exhausting to the soil. Was it not cruel that the poorer country, Ireland, should be forced to confine herself to the more difficult and costly branch of manufacture ; and yet have no security even in the pursuit of that. Relaxation The inevitable necessity of things, and not the considera- in her injus- ^ _ . tiees owing tious of iusticc and humanity, compelled England to re- to necessity, '' . . not bene- tracc many of her steps in her course of commercial, as she volence. j i. ' did subsequently with regard to political oppression. She began to find out that she had been hurting herself in her over-eagerness to dominate over Ireland. We have before mentioned the first indications of this discovery, when, so early as 1 739, (by the act 3rd Geo. II. chap. 3,) she had so THE COMMEKCIAL INJUSTICES. 191 far to relax her restrictions on our products, as to allow import of Irish woollen or bay-yarn, as her own manufac- turers were beginning to feel grievously the impetus given to the French woollen trade by the immense smuggled export of Irish wool to that country.* It had then been ascertained, that (to use the expression of the writers of that day) " one pack of Irisli wool became two or three on the continent," as it enabled the foreigner, by admixture, to work up his own wool. Sir Mathew Decker, in his " Decline of Foreign Trade," and Dr. Smith, in his "Memoirs of Wool," both show how England suffered in this respect, and record, that though Irish wool sold at about 50 per cent, advance on the price in England, yet that lal)our in foreign countries was so much cheaper, and the advantages derivable by foreigners from mixing the Irish wool with their own, that they were enabled to undersell England in foreign markets. The authorities we have mentioned (and various other writers) equally reprobated, and for similar reasons, the acts restricting import of Irish cattle and provisions into England, as we have earlier stated : it was in the same reign (viz., Geo. II.) in which Great Britain found it better for her interest to admit them, to exclude Irish wool and yarn, that she made the same discovery as to she articles of cattle and provisions. * Mr. Ray, (Secretary to the Repeal Association,) in a brief but most excellent Report drawn up by him in 1840, on the Trade and Manufactures of Ireland, treats of the occurrence of 1739 as follows: — " In 1739 it was found that Irish woollens were making their way to foreign ports, notwithstanding the stringency of the prohibitory laws. Permission was therefore given to export woollen and bay yarns to Eng- land, 'as it may be a means,' says the act, (12 Geo. II. chap. 11,) *to pre- vent export of wool and woollen manufactures from Ireland to foreign parts, and may also be of use to the manufactures of Great Britain.' And more strict provisions against export of Irish woollen goods to foreign parts were embodied in this statute." After this the reader can judge for himself of the degree of " benevolence" that suggested this first relaxation. 192 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Kngiish tes- ThesG relaxations were prompted, as we have said, by a this effect, better understanding of }ier own interests, and were far more beneficial to the latter than to Ireland. Qf the same description were those which succeeded them in 1778 and 1779, the one admitting Irish manufactured cotton yarn, and the other admitting Irish hemp.* The manufactures of Ireland /ro??z the woollen and cotton yarn, and from the hemp, were still rigorously excluded. At length came the time that no words of ours can so well describe, as it is de- scribed in the extract we have given at the commencement of this article, from the speech of the celebrated Mr. Huskisson in 1825 — the time when "state-necessities act- ing under a sense of political danger, yielded without grace that which good sense and good feeling had before recom- mended in vain !" The following is a summary of the events of this time : The"neces- On the failure of the attempt in 1779 (mentioned by sity" press- t, -^ • • • • « ing on her Mr. Huskisson) to cffcct a real, though partial, opening of the colonial trade to Ireland, the citizens of Dublin, the grand juries in many parts of Ireland, and the people throughout the country, met and passed strong resolutions in their different assemblies, condemnatory of the "avarice and ingratitude" of Great Britain — her " illiberal and con- tracted policy," &c., &c., and pledging themselves to Irish manufacture. The author of " Collectanea Politica," (in the first volume of which, pages 161-2, will be found some of these resolutions,) after remarking, that in consequence of this resolve Irish manufactures began to revive, and the demand for British goods greatly decreased, dryly observes, that " this circumstances tended to produce a dis- * We purposely omit here the 18 Geo. III. chap. 55, allowing some di- rect export from Ireland to the British colonial possessions — first, because of its insultingly limited extent, and second, because it was futile in prac- tice, owing to the restrictions on our direct import in return. We also omit two acts of Geo. II. which mocked us by mhbling at those restrictions, &c. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 193 position in Great Britain^ to attend to the complaints of this country^ different indeed from that which Ireland had hitherto experienced." External circumstances hastily ripened this disposition ; France had joined her arras with those of struggling America, and the scale was turning against British interests in the new hemisphere. The combined fleets of France and Spain " rode triumphant in the channel." " The affrighted maritime towns made application to the Govern- ment for protection ; part of the established forces of the nation having been called away to support the war in America, the chief governor was obliged to confess him- self unable to afford assistance The people of Ireland therefore resolved to defend themselves, — volunteer corps were formed in every part of the kingdom ; their force and respectability saved the country from ruin. The fleets of the enemy, alarmed at our military preparations, beheld the banners of defiance, and fled with precipitation from our coasts. Parliament bore testimony to the ser- vices and loyalty of these patriotic guardians of Ireland, in votes of thanks to the several volunteer corps for their spirited exertions, at this time so necessary in defence of this country." — f Collectanea Politica, or, the Political Transactions of Ireland, from 1760 to 1800, vol. i, p. 166.) The Irish parliament meeting on the 1 2th of October, 4e''[r^^°^ 1779, the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, in commons. his speech from the throne, drew attention to the " extraor- dinary decline of the revenues, notwithstanding the very liberal supplies of the last session," and called upon the country for new efforts. The Commons, however, after a warm and interesting debate, replied by an address to the King, as follows : — We beg leave humbly to represent to your Majesty, that it is not hy temporary expedients, but by a free trade alone, that this o 194 APPENDIX, NO. IV. nation is now to be saved from impending ruin. And from your Majesty's gracious declaration — imprinted in our hearts in characters of indelible gratitude — that " anxious for the happiness of all your people, you will most cheerfully cO' operate with your parliaments in such measures as may promote the common interests of all your subjects" we draw the happiest presages in favor of a measure essential to the existence of this kingdom, and which appears to us conducive to the interests of Great Britain. Permit us to assure your Majesty, that we have every dis- position to go as far as the national abilities will, in making a provision for the honourable support of your Majesty's govern- ment ; but with hearts glowing with the warmest wishes for the prosperity and glory of the British empire, and full of zeal against the common enemy, we have the mortification to find, that the limited state of our trade and commerce must, by narrowing our resources, set bounds to our liberality, very far short of our earnest inclinations. — (Irish Comm.ons' Journal, vol. xix.) They were fully borne out by facts in the matters they thus advanced. Ii-ish debt had enormously increased, in consequence of the falling off of the revenue, and so also had her drains. The profits of Ireland on all the trade that she had, were not estimated higher than £600,000 a year, vv^hile her remittances to England Avere computed at more than double that amount. But it is unnecessary to go into proofs of the distress of Ireland, when we have the admissions in the English parliament, not only on the occasions and by the persons Avhich are mentioned in our first pages, but general admissions in 1778-9, as will be seen by reference to the debates in the English parliament during those years. In the latter year the ministry of the day, in defending themselves against the charge of having occasioned the grievances of Ireland, declared " that her grievances originated many years before^ in the general system of trade laws — that the restrictions then laid on arose from a narrow^, short-sighted policy, which, though conceived in prejudice, and founded on ignorance, was yet THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 195 SO strengthened by time, and confirmed by the habits of a century, that it seemed at length wrought into, and became even a part of the constitution'' — (Coll. Pol. p. 173. J Notwithstanding: these things, nothing was done in the England ~ o ■' o coerced into way of relief at that moment. Immediately after, however, '■eiaxation. the Irish parliament took the strong measure of limiting the supplies to six months ; and this was effective where argument failed, and accordingly the British minister at length proceeded to give relief. The various propositions for the purpose, from the first starting of the matter in 1778, were as follows : In 1778, Lord Newhaven moved, in the English parlia- ment, that Ireland should be allowed freedom of export, except of her woollen manufactures ; and should have liberty of trading to and from America, the West Indies, and the Coast of Africa. From this position he was gradually beaten down ; until Detail*. in March, 1779, he had to reduce his motion to one for a repeal, in so far as related to the article of sugar, of that part of the Navigation Act of 1663, -which compelled sugar intended for Ireland, to be first landed in England. This he at first carried by a majority of 47 to 42 — but being afterwards deserted by the minister, on account of the vio- lent outcry of English and Scotch great towns, the motion was finally lost on a division of 62 to 58. In November of that year, the Irish parliament resolved unanimously — That the export from this kingdom of its woollen and other manufactures to all foreign places, would materially relieve its distresses, increase its wealth, promote its prosperity, and thereby advance the welfare of Great Britain, and the common strength, wealth, and commerce of the British empire. That a liberty for this kingdom to trade with the British colonies in America and the West Indies, and the British settlements on the Coast of Africa, in like manner as trade is o2 196 APPENDIX, NO. IV. carried on between Great Britain and the said colonies and settlements, would be productive of very great commercial benefits — would be a most affectionate mark of the regard and attention of Great Britain to our distresses — and would give new vigour to the zeal of his Majesty's brave and loyal people of Ireland, to stand forward in support of his Majesty's person and government, and the interest, the honour, and the dignity of the British empire." — (Commons' Journal, Vol. 19>) The British minister, coerced by the gathered force of public opinion, and the powerful additional stimulant of the short-money-bill from Ireland, accordingly moved on the 13th December, 1779, three propositions — first, for the repeal of those laws which prohibited export of Irish woollen goods and wool flocks to any part of Europe; second, that so much of the Act 19 Geo. II. as forbade import of glass into Ireland, save of British manufacture, and also forbade export of glass from Ireland, should be re- pealed ; and third, that Ireland should have freedom of trade to all the British colonial settlements, subject to such limitations and regulations as the parliament of Ireland should impose. tr^^di.^'"oT '^^^ *^^ ^^^^ were quickly passed into law — the third 1779-80. -^g^g clelayed till the next session, on the plea of some in- quiry being necessary into its probable effect in Ireland. In the latter country the partial concessions were received in so good a spirit, that the supplies were immediately granted for a year and a half more. Fresh inva- But this satisfaction was by no means unalloyed or last- sions of Irish . . , . . rights. jjig, England, unwisely for her own views of policy, had provoked the question of her right to control the legisla- ture of Ireland — a question which had always been present to the Irish mind ; and towards the discussion of which that mind had been of late strongly tending, with the determined purpose of asserting Independence of legislation. The privy council in England altered a mutiny bill, (by THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 197 making it perpetual,) sent over as usual for their approba- tion, from Ireland. This was altogether an unconstitutional proceeding, and woke up at once the smouldering flame. In this article we have to deal only with commercial matters, so do not go into the details of the constitutional agitation and demand which then arose, further than in so far as commerce was concerned. The alteration in the mutiny bill was accompanied by a nearly equally exasperating alteration in a bill respecting the import of sugars. The business of sugar-refining had recently taken great head in Ireland, and the parliament here sought to defend it against the English monopoly by an import duty on refined sugar ; while they sought to give it a fair stimulus by admitting raw sugar at a low rate. This the privy council reversed, reducing the duty on refined sugar 20 per cent, under the drawback allowed in England to tlie English refiner on export, and thereby giving the latter a virtual premium to that amount — and also increasing the duty on the raw sugar. The time was ill-chosen for further invasions on Irish Their con- rights. Irritation had long been rankling in Ireland at ^^i'^'^"'^^'' the restrictions on her commerce ; and it had indeed already broken out into an overt act. One of the Dublin Corpo- ration, Alderman Horan, resolved to test the question, whether the Irish woollen trade could be legally bound by the English act of William's reign, restricting it from foreign export. The act passed by the obsequious Irish parliament of that time, for the same purpose, had long before 1771 become extinct. Accordingly he tendered for entry outwards, at the Custom-house, Irish woollen goods. He was dissuaded* from pressing the point at the * The British Government indeed took care not to leave the issue to the chances of verbal remonstrance and persuasion — but prudently sent over, as a. final argument, the " Stag" Frigate, to the bay of Dublin, to look out for Alderman Horan's vessel. This, as an English argument on Irish matters, was consistent. 198 APPENDIX, NO. IV. moment : but the affair made great sensation — and (as we see from official documents copied in the laborious and most interesting memoir of his father's life, from the pen of Henry Grattan, the excellent member for Meath) drew the serious and alarmed attention of the government. These points of alterations in the mutiny bill and the sugar bill, were not considered in the Irish parliament till August 1780; and the delay by no means tended to calm the existing irritation — but grievously to impair the feelings of satisfaction and gratitude, which the Irish people had been disposed to demonstrate, after the commercial relaxations we have mentioned, as enacted in the English parliament in the month of February. Several minor circumstances concur- red to exasperate them still further, and to render irrevo- cable, and soon after irresistible, their determination to have a free parliament, without which they saw they never could obtain the full extension of their trade, amongst other benefits sought, nor even be sure of preserving what had been conceded to them. The Irish parliament disgraced itself at this juncture, by sanctioning the alterations in question. Their conduct in this respect excited great indignation against themselves ; and the Merchants' Corps of Volunteers, the Independent Dublin and Liberty Corps, and several other corps, and the general body of the citizens of Dublin, passed strong reso- lutions in their several meetings, condemnatory of the con- duct of their legislature — which, in its turn, passed a vote of censure on these proceedings, and addressed the Viceroy to prosecute their authors. Irish inter- In the short session of the year 1781 the chief matters ed Ind^s^a-' of debate were the obstructions given to our woollens and printed linens in the ports of Portugal, and the disastrous effects to our sugar-refineries of the measure of the pre- ceding year. On this point several members of the mer- cantile body were examined at the bar of the commons, criflced. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 199 and their evidence of the mischief done was strongly sup- ported and urged by Grattan, Flood, and other patriots, but without any good result. The other matter, the dis- pute with Portugal, had its origin in a measure of the preceding session, which raised the duties on port wine ; at the same time, however, that the previous advantage which that wine had possessed over those of France was proportionately preserved, by an equal increase upon the previously higher duties on the latter. In the two months of the session of 1782, the attention of the government was several times called to the dispute, but without suc- cess. Early in the ensuing session, however, viz., on the 6th of February, 1782, the House unanimously adopted an address to the Throne, calling the royal attention to the conduct of Portugal, and soliciting his Majesty's interfer- ence to procure an abatement of the grievance complained of. The royal answer, received March 5th, promised com- pliance with the request, but further than the giving of this promise nothing was done. In another article of this appendix we treat of the glorious achievement in 1782, of legislative independence ; at present it is not properly within our scope to speak of it, as we are dealing with the commercial relations of the countries alone. We have now seen the full extent of the relaxations Reaiiy umit- . Til ... . ^'^ nature of obtamed by Ireland up to 1782, in theriarid exclusion-code '''^ "Frbe ^ '' ^ ' » Trade" of which England had enacted against our manufactures. ^^^2. Ireland by them obtained liberty of trade with foreign countries and the dependencies of Great Britain, (excepting the East Indies,) but trade with Britain herself remained in nearly as unequal and unjust a condition as ever ; she took from us little else but our inferior linens and our linen yarn, which we could have worked up more profitably at home ; and the Avhole sum she spent upon our products M'as estimated not to exceed half-a-million at the utmost. 200 APrENDIX, NO. IV. On the other hand, we took largely of her manufactures, and paid her about two millions of money for them. Some idea of the discrepancy of the customs' rates between the two countries may be formed from the fact, that English cloths were charged only with 6d. per yard on entering Ireland, whereas Irish were shut out of British ports by the enormous charge of £2 Os. 6d. per yard. In fact the "Fi'ee Trade" obtained in 1782, although an immense im- provement on the previously existing state of things, was a most maimed and halting measure, and almost altogether justified the assurances that the British minister, Lord North, found himself compelled to give, in circular letters, to the manufacturing towns of England, to the eflfect that " nothing effectual had been granted to Ireland V Proof of Yet, neither these assurances, nor the facts that to a con- the Eng^iish sidcrablc extent bore them out, were successful in satisfy- ministers. jj^g ^^ griping spirt of the English manufacturers and traders. The concessions, " ineffectual" as they were thus represented to be, and limited most unfairly, as they un- doubtedly were, yet looked too large in the eyes of selfish monopoly ; and in three years from their date, Mr. Pitt, who had in 1782 declared them to be nothing more than what Ireland had the merest and purest right to demand, had to conciliate public opinion in England, by stigmatiz- ing them as " ignorant and unsystematic," and such as re- quired limitation. Examina- The occasiou ou which he did so, was In 1785, when propositions bringing forward the celebrated " commercial propositions" of that year. Whether those propositions had any better foundations in " British generosity" than any of the prece- ding changes proposed, or effected, in the commercial relations of the two countries, will be seen on perusing the account we now proceed to give of them. In Ireland they were, and have been up to the present day, usually styled, " Orde's propositions," from their THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 201 having been first brought forward by Mr. Orde, Secretary for Ireland. On the 17th of February, 1785, he introduced them to the Irish House of Commons, in the following shape : — I. — Resolved — That it is the opinion of this committee, The "com- (committee of the whole House,) that it is highly important to ^opogHions the general interest of the British Empire, that the trade be- asonginaiiy tween Great Britain and Ireland be encouraged and extended °^°^^ ' as much as possible, and, for that purpose, that the intercourse and commerce be finally settled, and regulated on permanent and equitable principles, for the mutual benefit of both countries. II. — That towards carrying into full effect so desirable a settlement, it is fit and proper that all articles not the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, should be imported into each kingdom from the other reciprocally, under the same regulations, and at the same duties, if subject to duties, to which they are liable when imported directly from the place of their growth, product, or manufacture ; and that all duties originally paid on the import into either country respectively, shall be fully drawn back on export to the other. III. — That for the same purpose it is proper that no prohi- bition should exist in either country, against the importation, use, or sale of any article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other ; and that the duty on import of every such article, if subject to duty in either country, should be precisely the same in the one as in the other, except where an addition may be necessary in either country, in consequence of an internal duty on any such article of its own consumption. IV. — That in all cases where the duties on articles of the growth, product, or manufacture of either country are diff'erent on the importation into the other, it would be expedient that they should be reduced in the kingdom where they are highest to the amount payable in the other ; and that all such articles should be exportable from the kingdom into which they shall be imported, as free from such duty as the similar commodities, or home manufacture of the same kingdom. V. — That for the same purpose it is also proper, that in all cases where either kingdoms shall charge articles of its own consumption with an internal duty on the maimfacture, or a duty on the material, the same manufacture, when imported from 202 APPENDIX, NO. IV. the other, may be charged with a further import-duty to the same amount as the internal duty on the manufacture, or to an amount adaquate to countervail the duty on the material ; and shall be entitled to such drawbacks or bounties upon export, as may leave the same subject to no heavier burthens than the home-made manufacture ; such further duty to continue so long as the internal consumption shall be charged with the duty or duties to balance which it shall be imposed, or until the manu- facture coming from the other kingdom, shall be subjected there to an equal burthen, not drawn back or compensated on expor- tation. VI. — That in order to give permanency to the settlement now intended to be established, it is necessary that no prohibi- tion, or new additional duties, should be hereafter imposed in either kingdom, on import of any article of the growth, pro- duct, or manufacture of the other, save such additional duties as may be requisite to balance duties on internal consumption, pursuant to the foregoing resolution. VII That for the same purpose it is further necessary, that no prohibitions, or new and additional duties, should be hereafter imposed in either kingdom, on export of any article of native growth, product, or manufacture, to the other ; except such as either kingdom may deem expedient, from time to time, upon corn, meal, malt, flour, and biscuit; and also except where there now exists any prohibition which is not reciprocal, or any duty not equal in both. In every such case the prohibition may be reciprocal, or the duties raised, so as to make them equal. VIII. — That for the same purpose it is necessary, that no bounties whatever be paid in either kingdom, on export of any article to the other, except such as relate to corn, meal, malt, flour, and biscuit ; and such as are in the nature of drawbacks, or compensation for duties paid ; and that no bounty be granted in this kingdom on export of any article imported from the British plantations, or any manufacture made of such article, unless in cases where a similar bounty is payable in Britain on export from thence ; or whex'e such bounty is merely in the nature of a drawback, or compensation for duties paid, over and above any duties paid thereon in Britain. IX. — That it is expedient for the general benefit of the British empire, that the import of articles from foreign states should be regulated from time to time, in each kingdom, on such terms as may affbrd an effectual preference to the import THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 203 of similar articles of the growth, product, or manufacture of the other. X That it is the opinion of this committee, that for the protection of trade, whatever sum the gross hereditary revenue of this kingdom (after deducting drawbacks, repayments, and bounties in the nature of drawbacks) shall produce annually, over and above the sum of £ should be appropriated towards the naval force of the empire, in such manner as the parliament of this kingdom shall direct. Mr. Secretary Orde introduced these propositions with o^de^g*'^ many praises of the liberality of England. " The moment," f,Fcf(fue^ing" said he, (page 119 of the 4th vol. Irish Parliamentary {^/„^„p;7tf° Register,) " is, I trust, come, when she will make her vie- ^®^' ^^'^^' tory over herself complete — when the reservation even of a just preference will be given up, and thereby every obstacle removed to the interchange of the commodities of the world The same principle which induces Great Britain to sacrifice a partial interest to the great object, a generous reciprocity, will influence your estimation and acknowledgment of her unequivocal liberality, &c., &c." He praised the second resolution, as enabling Ireland to Attempts at i- ' o delusion. " supply the British market, on the same terms as the Bri- tish merchants could." Of the third, he said — " that it secured the English market for Irish goods, linens, tabbi- nets, poplins, &c." And he added, " at this day how large a portion of what Britain takes from Ireland is Irish produce ! and how small a portion of what Ireland takes from Britain is produced there !" But the part of his speech most to be noticed, Avas that concerning the tenth resolution, viz. — " Great Britain will thus generously sacri- fice her monopolies ; she gives up the hope of being the emporium of trade, at a time when her burdens press upon her ; and she groans under the weight of a debt incurred by the general defence of the empire. I hope we will meet her Avith a like liberality of sj)irit. If, in consequence 204 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Manner in which the plan was received. Objections noted, and evaded, Adjourn- ment to 11th Feb. of this adjustment, a great increase of revenue arise to Ireland, it Avill not be thought unreasonable to appropriate a part to the protection of the trade from which it arises ; and by our contributing to the support of the naval force of the empire, Britain will still be enabled to afford pro- tection." The Right Hon. William Brownlow, M.P. for Armagh County, rose next, and denounced the tenth proposition, as tending to make Ireland a tributary nation. The whole plan was however received with something like favour by the House. The Right Hon. Luke Gardiner, (afterwards Lord Mountjoy,) one who at that time held a prominent position in the patriotic ranks, went so far as to express some gratitude for the " liberal principles'" that the Eng- lish ministry seemed disposed to act upon. He made how- ever a general objection, that these resolutions would go to prevent protecting duties, which he considered necessary to the manufacturers of Ireland, to balance England's advan- tages of " long established trade, large capitals, and exten- sive credit." And he concluded by calling attention to the failure of reciprocity as regarded mutual interchange of the raw material of each other's staple, viz. — linen yarn for Ireland, and wool for England ; the latter being strictly guarded against export from England, while Irish linen yarn was to go free into that country. Mr. Foster, Chancellor of the Exchequer, (afterwards, and until the Union, Speaker of the Irish House of Com- mons — and subsequently an official in the united parliament, until raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Oriel,) gave no other answer to these objections, than that our linen ma- nufacture was of the greatest importance to us ; and would now be secure of the English market. The matter was then adjourned to Friday, the 11th of February, on which day — THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 205 Petitions were presented against the propositions — one f^*!*^™* from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, to much the same effect as Mr. Gardiner's objections — and a similar one from the woollen, silk, cotton, and mixed goods manufacturers of Dublin. Mr. Flood and others complained of being hurried into consideration of the matter. He complained that the people of Ireland had asked for g/n°'^hl's^;p. protection ; and the answer was the 4th proposition, which po^'^o^- was to do away with all protection ; — and insisted on the necessity of preserving our home-market. With much debate, but no division, the propositions were ^f^^^^j^^p^'^t,, passed, until the 7th, when Mr. Gardiner moved that ^ecm-e^reai neither country should prohibit export of the raw material of its staple. He said " Irish woollen yarn was best for the weft — and English for the warp. Now the English get our yarn, of which they make their weft — but send none of theirs to us to make our warp — w^hich surely was no reciprocity." The Committee divided — FaiUu-e. For the amendment, ... 33 For the original resolution, 178 It was then proposed that the following should be the 10th resolution : — That it Is essential to the commercial interest of this country Change at to prevent, as much as possible, an accumulation of national the resoiu- debt ; and that therefore it is highly expedient that the annual ^^Jj^^™^*^® revenues of this kingdom should be made equal to its annual ecu. unence of urattan, expenses. ^,^0 tietends And that the lUh should be, — "That for the better pro- them, tection of trade, whatever sum the gross hereditary revenue of this kingdom (after deducting all drawbacks, repayments, or bounties in the nature of drawbacks) shall produce over and above the sum of £656,000 in each year in peace, wherein the annual revenue shall equal the annual expense ; and In each year of war, without regard to such equality ; should be ap- 206 APPENDIX, NO. IV. propriated towards the support of the naval force of the empire, in such manner as the parliament of this kingdom shall direct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that in these he had the advice and assistance of Mr. Grattan. It was objected, that the first of these made no pro- vision for reduction of expenditure — but for increased taxa- tion. And that the second was, in fact, a subsidy to England. Allusion to Mr. Grattan defended them on the ^rounds that " by the "Sur- , , ° ; pius,"ques- making the survilus not applicable to the areneral expendi- tion of 1753. ^ ^ >■ ^ ^ » . . ^ , ture till all expenses were paid, both British and Irish ministers would be interested in Irish economy, and the Irish parliament would have the control." This latter provision decided, he said, "the great question of 1753." (which was a controversy as to whether the Irish parlia- ment had, or had not, the power of disposing of surplus revenue, after clearing off the debt — an occurrence that took place in that year.) pa^ida°Tn ^hc " propositious," or resolutions were then passed. hour"n1he On Monday, February 14, Mr. Flood re-opened the Mr.™ufod's" subject, commencing by stating he had been obliged by absence. iHnegg to Icavc the House, at a comparatively early period of the previous discussion, and had gone with the impres- sion that the promise of Mr. Foster to " ameliorate" the concluding resolution, would have been otherwise carried out than it was. He com- jJc accuscd Fostcr of seeking unfairly to create the plainsthere- ~ •> of,Marchi4, «j ca5M5" of the 11 til rcsolution, by not including^ in the and accuses 'J o of°fraud"^"' deductions excepted in it, the corn-bounty, and the Ireland cliargcs of management of the revenue. He contended hafeVnavy ^^^^ Ireland ought not thus to give away her money for of her own. ^^^j. ^^ ^^^ navy of the empire, but, if need were, to create and support a navy of her own ; and showed what a bad precedent she had, in the provision she had been called upon, since 1769, to make for the army of the empire, which THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 207 had caused her debt ever since to accumulate. He said that a part of the hereditary revenue was ah*eady appro- priated to a sea-guard — that a time when England herself" was in every way retrenching, was no time for us, instead ^"be'mlde of reducing our heavy military establishment, to add to our mJre debt, expenses by this naval contribution, and to her debt also, TenteTfebt: as she could not borrow all she would want at home, but amendment. should do so in England, and so create absentee debt, the interest being, of course, paid and spent out of the country. He concluded by moving, " That an immediate and effec- tual retrenchment is necessary." An amendment to defer (and thereby, of course, defeat) his motion was then moved by Mr. Mason, (M.P. for the borough of St. Canice, or Irishtown, county Kilkenny.) Division for the amendment, ... 131 For Mr. Flood's motion, 43 '''''''"'■ No sufficient answer appears to have been given — nor, General re- ^ '^ *• '-' marks on indeed, could be given, to Mr. Flood's eloquent and most "^^ ^^^oi^ cogent arguments. The arrangement then, as proposed in February, 1785, stands charged with the following injus- tices towards Ireland : — First, That by resolution 4 (and others), she was to de- {[.gj^^^"^'"^ prive herself at once, and for ever, of all protection against ^^^^^l^^^^ the tremendous rivalry of the long-established manufac- f°c^tureT"" tures of England, supported as they were by an immensely superior capital, and of course a system of long credits. The soundness, or otherwise, of a " protection-policy" has nothing to do with the question here. Ireland should not have been called upon to give up her freedom of action with regard to it*, when Great Britain retained her power * We are not here calling in question the free-trade doctrine, that a country ought to make its renunciation of "protections," without reference to what other countries may retain of them, — but are shewing the hollowness of the pretence on the part of England, of an equality of concession. 208 APPENDIX, NO. IV. in that respect. There was but an illusory pretence of reciprocity ; as article 5 enabled England to add the the amounts of her own excise duties, as additional upon import duties on Irish goods entering her ports ; and so render those duties really much heavier than the Irish duties on imports from England. Also perfect Sccond, That by resolution 6, England Avas to be enabled reciprocity ^ j -> o lished'En *^ ^^PP^J hcrsclf at her own terms Avith our linen yarn, that favoured as ^^' ^^ material of our staple manufacture, — while resolution to her wool. -^^ allowed the continuance of her prohibition of export to us of her wool, the material of her staple manufacture, and an article which loe much desired to have. Againstpro- Third, That we should (by resolution 9) pledge ourselves fitaWetrea- . -, . . ty with fo- to give English goods a preference over foreign, no matter how much more advantageous to us to deal with the foreigner. England, to be sure, was to be similarly bound : but our staple manufacture, that of linen, had a powerfiU rival in the Scotch linen in her market, and we had nothing else of consequence which she would take. Toheavj-in- Eourth, That the resolution No. 10, (as last proposed crease of _ \ j. i. taxation, ^jij Carried,) went to sanction the scarcely concealed pur- atid to a tn- ^' ^ ^ . *'"'^- pose of the minister to increase our burthens, without any reference to the propriety of reducing our expenses. Fifth, That the final resolution, No. 11, violated all constitutional precedent, by pledging the country, without limitation of time, to pay a certain fixed amount of money to England, upon the occiu-rence of a contingency, the great likelihood of which was enhanced by the fraudulent working of the clause providing for it. The proviso giving the Irish parliament control over the details of the disposition of the grant was a mockery, when they were to preclude themselves from meddling with its general application. But these injustices did not aj)pear to the parliament of England to be sufficient. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 209 Mr. Pitt, in submittincj the resolutions to the British English pai-- ' "= - _ liameut parliament for their adoption, (which he did on the 22nd ii^o^^ever not February, 1785,) found it necessary to endeavour to re- even mth^ move from the minds of his hearers the impression which j^^^^^^l° his deputy in Ireland (Mr. Orde) had laboured to make upon the Irish parliament ; viz., that the contemplated pitt contra- in-fiT r 1 iHctingOrJc. arrangement was a pure benent to Ireland, out oi the liberality of England. In the first place, he sought to have it considered that Ireland had required this arrangement. " What has been done" (said he, alluding to the concessions of 1780-2) " was still viewed by the Irish people as insufficient, and clamours were excited, and suggestions published in Dublin and elsewhere, of putting duties on English pro- duce and manufactures, under the name of protecting duties." This last branch of the sentence discloses at once and ^gj; oTtife thoroughly the real reason why the proposed arrangement coming out was brought forward by the British ministry. They could ciumsfness^° not show one petition to prove that Ireland wished for it. device. In fact and truth the secret of the matter was, the desire to prevent the Irish from giving their own manufactures some protection against the crushing rivalry of England. Compelled by the somewhat indiscreet anxiety of the representatives of the manufacturing interests of England^ to speak plainer than exactly consisted with the language of Mr. Orde in Ireland, he asked — What was likely to be the extent of this boon to Ireland ? Was it likely she would become the mart of the empire ? He could not believe it ever would be the case It was not probable that Ireland ever could furnish England with colonial produce in any great degree As to the equalization of the duties on mutual intercourse, a country like Ireland, not ca- pable of supplying herself, never could meet us in our markets. With the disadvantage of being loaded with heavy 210 APPENDIX, NO. IV, taxes at home, still our manufactures had always been able to triumph over the Irish in their own markets, paying the low duties there on import, and also the charges Would Ireland's cheap labour enable her to undersell us ? Manufac- turers thought otherwise ; there were great obstacles to the planting of any manufacture. It would require time for arts and capital, which could not increase without the demand ; and in an established manufacture improvement was so rapid as to bid defiance to rivalship. In some of our manufactures too, there were natural and insurmountable obstacles to their com- petition. In the woollens, for instance, hy confining the raw material to this countri/, the manufacture was confined also. Mr. Fox made the following significant remark on this occasion : Fox'8 elo- quent de- nunciation of the pre- tences put forward. It had struck him as a singular instance of ingenuity, that in opening the outlines of the plan, the right honourable gentle- man (Mr. Pitt) had done away with a good deal of what had been said upon the subject in another speech, to another assem- bly. Indeed his (Mr. Pitt's) speech had been little else than an answer to that of Mr. Secretary Orde, in the Irish House of Commons It was curious to observe how differently the minister in Ireland, and the minister in England, had re- commended the same propositions to two different parliaments. In Ireland they had been stated as highly advantageous to that country — putting it on the footing of Great Britain, and rendering it an emporium of trade, and the source and supply of the British markets. In England and in that House they were told that the propositions were such as this country (Eng- land) might gladly accede to. Why ? ' Because it gives Ire- land nothing but what it had before — because Ireland cannot rival you — because Ireland is poor and feeble ; and because Ireland must remain so, if not for ever, at least for a consider- able length of time.' It was agreed upon, that time should be given for the presentation of petitions respecting these resolutions, here- ing of counsel at the bar of the house on the s\ibject, &c. &c. ; in consequence of this, it was not till Thursday, 7th again in the May, 1785, that tlic propositions were debated, with a view Time for pet.tions, &c. allowed. The propo- sitions brought on liamentTth to definite adoption. May, 1*85. ■•■ THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 211 In moving them, Mr. Pitt took occasion to state, as fol- lows, the then position of Ireland : — Ireland could, at this moment, trade with unlimited freedom Pitt exposes to every foreign state in Europe, supply them with her own pro- conditimi of duce and manufacture, and carry home theirs in return. She g^fg^hadfiee was also at liberty to supply the British colonies in the West foreign Indies, and, by a direct trade homeward, furnish herself with colonia" the West India sroods. But this was not all, she could also, t'^fie. and o _ ^ -' ^ ' could carrv* at this moment, supply the British market, by a direct trade to colonial Britain, with the produce of the British Islands. Relative to fo°Gre'ar'' West-India commodities, the only question now was, that the Britain. Irish should be permitted to bring into England, clrcuitously through Ireland, those goods which they were at present at full liberty to import into this country direct from the West Indies. The opposition to this was from the West India planters, who feared that foreign sugars would be imported under cover of it. Mr. Pitt said that Ireland " had no better right to complain iier exciii- of exclusion from the East India trade, than any one of our {jfJ^East" outports. He would, however, allow her this, that ' the East indies. India Company should be empowered to take in such part of their outward bound cargo as they might Jind convenient, in pj.opo,(,,i the ports of Ireland, and also to Import directly from the East ^oon in tins Indies into Ireland, whatever they might think proper.' " respec . He condemned the petitions against this plan, saying, that "the greater part of them had been drawn up without due at- tention to the subject They seemed (the petitioners) not to know that the liberties and privileges to Ireland, of which they complained, and her rivalry in foreign markets, subsisted by the laws already in existence." He then went on to combat the doctrine " that Ireland, from Pitt further the cheapness of labour, must necessarily undersell the English ireiand^^ '^^ manufactui'er It did not depend on that sort of work cmid not which was required for the most rough and rude occupations of land. agriculture, whether a nation was to flourish in manufacture or not The fears of the manufacturers were extremely far-fetched and ill-founded They had declared them- r2 212 APPENDIX, NO. IV, selves to be afraid that the Irish should be able to draw over all their vrorkmen, all their trade and capital, and undersell them in their own markets by at least 13 per cent. Now he de- States the sired the committee to attend to that single subject. The Irish duty ontot- ^°**°'^ trade was to enter England by this plan, at £10^ per ton import cent, duty, and yet it was said they were to undersell the Eng- land, lof lish cotton manufacturer by 1 3 per cent. ! Besides this, Eng- noh^fth-' ^^^^ had hitherto imported into Ireland at a duty of £10^ per standing Cent. These three sums together would make £34 per cent. ; Englishman therefore if these petitions deserved credit, they had, at that iiMsi/cott disadvantage, engrossed almost exclusively the Irish market, in nianufac- whicli their dealings had increased and flourished to an extent "'"■ hardly to be equalled by any other branch of trade known — a thing perfectly beyond the reach of belief In another branch there was the same exaggerated representation by Mr. Wedgewood, the earthenware manufacturer, who had given a very copious testimony at the bar, in the most collected and de- liberate manner, and yet the House could learn nothing more from him than his having wished to engross every market to which he had ever thought of sending his wares ; and, by the by, he did not know well how to send them to Ireland for fear of damage by breakage and other losses. At all risk of credi- bility and consistency, he sought to find nothing in these pro- positions but ruin to his manufacture." Ridicules After ridiculing the idea of comparing a poor with a the jealousy "^ j. o x th^Britisif ^'^^^^ country, and showing that notwithstanding the great manufactu- advantages predicted to Scotland from her union with rers, especi- O l fand was a England, the latter had been " more benefitted by it" and that poOT coun- ^j^g result of that union " had been such as not to make ttiafte* England averse to a repetition of the experiment, he pro- wkTscot- ceeded to open land bene- fitted the latter less That part of the plan which was entirely and exclusively than Eng- i i /t-iii\ ii-i ii land, who, favourable to this country (England), and which was to be the wo'idT'^'not gratuity given by Ireland for whatever benefit she was to de- be averse to rive, and the compensation to England for whatever advantage repeat the . • i , • t»i • x* ji experiment." she might givB up 1 his Compensation was the sur- ireianTf P^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Irish hereditary revenue, over and above £654,000 The "Tri- for her own uses. This would bear an exact proportion to the "yhiintobe benefit she was to reap from the new arrangements ; her heredi- THE COMMEHCIAL INJUSTICES. 213 tary revenue was by customs on almost evei-y thing imported, ^if^'^i;'^'^" by excise on the most general articles of consumption, and by a Ireland of a house-tax, levied on the number of hearths in each The ®"*^ committee would see, therefore, that this revenue would in- crease necessarily as soon as the new arrangement had effect, and in exact proportion to that effect, every article of which it was composed being so closely connected with commerce, wealth, and population. It was his idea that the supply should be taken in provisions and stores. He concluded with submitting an " amended" and ex- JJifnuSber tended list of" propositions," increasing the number greatly, sitionsfanu" and materially altering and adding to the substance. Mr. gency! "" Fox, speaking to the question a little later, remarked severely upon the hiffh-handed manner in which the first fox asks list had been sought to be pressed upon the House, and tion of so praised for their perfection ; whereas now, the minister had ciiange, if A ••• ^ ^ ^ ' ^ the first been forced practically to admit their great faultiness — plan were aii ■•■ •' " it had been that by them, as they first stood, England would have lost pretended, the monopoly of the East India trade, hazarded the revenue arising from spirituous liquors — no distinction having been made between native and foreign spirits — nor any protec- tion provided against the latter. That they would have sacrificed the navigation laws, and thereby given up " the great source of commercial opulence, the prime origin of l^^ ^'^^'■? o • J: ' X O his own jea- our maritime strength," in trust to Ireland, leaving Eng- {"JJ^^'^'^^'"'^' lish interests totally dependent on her policy and her bounty. That a door would be opened to most extensive smuggling — no bonds, cockets, &c. &c., being required. And that Ireland having the poAver of giving bounties, or allowing drawbacks on goods exported to the colonies, might beat England in the colonial market, while she could also injure the colonies, by letting in foreign colonial goods cheap. He continued thus : — 214 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Inadvertent I need iiot State to the committee a fact so universallv known, confessionof ,, , „ i • • i 7 i ^ /> t hardship to as that the produce of oicr colonies is dearer than that oj the Ireland. foreign islands. Nevertheless, we have given them the home- market, on account of the natural interest we have in them, and we must continue to do so. But Ireland has no such obli- gation ; on the contrary, her interest would as forcibly lead her to the foreign colonies. He supports Aware of this fact with regard to Ireland, and in order posittoni'be- to prevsnt her from thus consulting her own interest, Mr. their strin- Fox Supported the new form of the " propositions." Mr. Pitt succeeded in carrying his resolutions, and send- ing them to the Lords. After some amendments there, and subsequent amendments, unnecessary to be detailed, in the Commons on return, both houses finally agreed to, and passed them in the following shape : — Thepropo- I, — That it is highly important to the interests of both coun- they"fiiraUy tries, that the commerce between Great Britain and Ireland passed in should be finally regulated on permanent and equitable princi- ples, for the mutual benefit of both countries. II That a full participation of commercial advantages should be permanently secured to Ireland, whenever a provi- sion equally permanent and secure, shall be made by the par- liament of that kingdom, towards defraying, in proportion to its growing prosperity, the necessary expenses in time of peace, of protecting the trade and general interests of the empire. III. — That towards carrying into full effect so desirable a settlement, it is fit and proper that all articles, not the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, except those of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any of the countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, to the Streights of Magellan, should be imported into each kingdom from the other reciprocally, under the same regulations, and at the same duties (if subject to duties) to which they would be liable, when imported directly from the country or place from whence the same may have been imported into Great Britain or Ireland respectively, as the case may be ; and that all duties originally paid on importation into either country respectively, except on arrack and foreign brandy, and on rum, and all sorts of strong waters not imported from the British colonies in the West Indies, shall be fully drawn THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 2 K3 back on exportation to the other. But, nevertheless, that the duties shall continue to be protected and guarded, as at pre- sent, by withholding the drawback, until a certificate from the proper officers of the revenue, in the kindom to which the ex- port may be made, shall be returned and compared with the entry outwards. IV. — That it is highly important to the general interests of the British empire, that the laws for regulating trade and navi- gation, should be the same in Great Britain and Ireland ; and, therefore, that it is essential towards carrying into effect the present settlement, that all laws which have been made, or shall be made in Great Britain, for securing exclusive privileges to the ships and mariners of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British colonies and plantations, and for regulating and re- straining the trade of the British colonies and plantations, (such laws imposing the same restraints, and conferring the same benefits on the subjects of both kingdoms,) should be in force in Ireland, by laws to be passed by the parliament of that kingdom, for the same time, and in the same maimer, as in Great Britain. V. — That it is further essential to this settlement, that all goods and commodities of the growth, produce, or manufacture of British or foreign colonies in America or the West Indies, and the British or foreign settlements on the coast of Africa, imported into Ireland, should, on importation, be subject to the same duties and regulations, as the like goods are, or from time to time shall be subject to, upon importation into Great Britain ; or if prohibited from being imported into Great Britain, shall in like manner be prohibited from being impoi'ted into Ireland. VI — That in order to prevent illicit practices, injurious to the revenue and commerce of both kingdoms, it is expedient that all goods, whether of the growth, produce, or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, or of any foreign country, which shall be hereafter imported into Great Britain from Ireland, or into Ireland from Great Britain, should be put, by laws to be passed in the parliament of the two kingdoms, under the same regula- tions with respect to bonds, cockets, and other instruments, to which the like goods are now subject in passing from one port of Great Britain to another. VII — That for the like purpose it is also expedient, that when any goods, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the British West India islands, or any other of the British colonies or plantations, shall be shipped from Ireland for Great Britain -I '3 APPENDIX, NO. IV. they should be accompanied with such original certificates of the revenue officers of the said colonies, as shall be required by the law, on importation into Great Britain ; and that when the whole quantity included in one certificate, shall not be shipped at any one time, the original certificate, properly indorsed as to quantity, should be sent with the first parcel ; and to identify the remainder, if shipped at any future period, new certificates should be granted by the principal officers of the ports in Ire- land, extracted from a register of the original document, speci- fying the quantities before shipped, from thence, by what vessels, and to what ports. VIII. — That it is essential for carrying into effect the present settlement, that all goods exported from Ireland to the British colonies in the West Indies, or in America, or to the British settlements on the coast of Africa, should from time to time be made liable to such duties and drawbacks, and put under such regulations as may be necessary, in order that the same may not be exported with less incumbrance of duties or imposition than the like goods shall be burthened with when exported from Great Britain. IX. — That it is essential to the general commercial interests of the empire, that so long as the parliament of this kingdom shall think it advisable, that the commerce to the countries be- yond the Cape of Good Hope shall be carried on solely by an exclusive company, having liberty to import into the port of London only, no goods of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, should be im- portable into Ireland from any foreign country, or from any set- tlement in the East Indies belonging to any such foreign coun- try ; and that no goods of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the said countries should be allowed to be Imported into Ire- land but through Great Britain ; and it shall be lawful to export such goods of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any of the countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope to the Strelghts of Magellan, from Great Britain to Ireland, with the same du- ties retained thereon as are now retained on their being exported to that kingdom ; but that an account shall be kept of the duties retained, and the net drawback on the said goods imported to Ireland ; and the amovmt thereof shall be remitted by the re- ceiver-general of his Majesty's customs In Great Britain to the proper officers of the revenue in Ireland, to be placed to the ac- count of his Majesty's revenue there, subject to the disposal of the parliament of that kingdom ; and that whenever the com- THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 217 merce to the said countries shall cease to be carried on by an exclusive company, in the goods of the produce of countries be- yond the Cape of Good Hope to the Streights of Magellan, the goods should be importable into Ireland from countries from which they may be importable into Great Britain, and no other ; and that no vessel should be cleared out from Ireland, for any part of the countries from the Cape of Good Hope to the Streights of Magellan, but such as shall be freighted in Ireland by the said exclusive company, and shall have sailed from the port of London ; and that the ships going from Great Britain to any of the said countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, should not be restrained from touching at any of the ports in Ireland, and taking on board there any of the goods of the growth, produce, or manufacture of that kingdom. X That no prohibition should exist in either country, against the importation, use, or sale of any article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other, except such as either kingdom may judge expedient, from time to time, upon corn, meal, malt, flour, and biscuits ; and except such qualified prohi- bitions, at present contained in any act of the British or Irish parliaments, as do not absolutely prevent the importation of goods, or manufactures, or materials of manufactures, but only regulate the weight, the size, the packages, or other particular circumstances, or prescribe the build or country, and dimensions of the ship importing the same ; and also, except on arms, am- munition, gunpowder, and other utensils of war, importable only by virtue of his Majesty's license ; and that the duty on the im- portation of every su(?li article (if subject to duty in either country) should be precisely the same in one country as in the other, except where an addition may be necessary in either country, in consequence of internal duty on any such article of its own consumption, or in consequence of internal bounties in the country where such article is grown, produced, or manufac- tured, and except such duties as either kingdom may judge expedient, from time to time, upon corn, meal, flour, malt, and biscuits. XI — That in all cases where the duties on articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, are differ- ent on the importation into the other, it is expedient that they be reduced in the kingdom where they are the highest, to an amount not exceeding the amount payable in the other ; so that the same shall not be less than ten and a half per cent, where any article was charged with a duty on importation into 218 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Ireland, of ten and a half per cent, or upwards, previous to the 17th day of May, 1782; and that all such articles should be exportable from the kingdom Into which they shall be imported, as free from duty as the similar commodities or home manufactures of the same kingdom. XII. — That it is also proper, that in all cases where the articles of the consumption of either kingdom shall be charged with an internal duty on the manufacture, the said manufacture, when imported from the other, may be charged with a further duty on Importation, adequate to countervail the internal duty on the manufacture, as far as relates to the duties now charged thereon ; such further duty to continue so long only as the internal consumption shall be charged with the duty or duties, to balance which it shall be imposed ; and that, where there is a duty on the importation of the raw material of any manufac- ture in one kingdom greater than the like duty on raw materials In the other, such manufacture may, on its importa- tion into the other kingdom, be charged with such a counter- vailing duty, as may be sufficient to subject the same, so imported, to burdens adequate to those which the manufacture composed of the like raw material is subject to, in consequence of duties on the importation of such material in the kingdom into which such manufacture is so imported ; and the said manufacture so imported, shall be entitled to such drawbacks or bounties on exportation, as may leave the same subject to no heavier burden than the home-made manufacture. XIII That in order to give permanency to the settlement now Intended to be established, it is necessary that no new or additional duties should be hereafter imposed in either king- dom on the importation of any article of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other, except such additional duties as may be requisite to balance the duties on internal consumption, pursuant to the foregoing resolution, or in consequence of bounties remaining on such articles when exported from the other kingdom. XIV That for the same purpose it is necessary further, that no prohibition, or new or additional duties, shall be here- after imposed in either kingdom, on the exportation of any article of native growth, produce, or manufacture, from one kingdom to the other, except such as either kingdom may deem expedient from time to time, upon corn, meal, malt, flour, and biscuits. XV. — That for the same purpose it is necessary, that no THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 219 bounties whatever should be paid or payable in either king- dom, on the exportation of any article to the other, except such as relate to corn, meal, flour, and biscuits. And except also the bounties at present given by Great Britain on beer and spirits distilled from corn, and such as are in the na- ture of drawbacks, or compensations for duties paid. And that no bounty should be payable on the exportation of any article to any British colonies or plantations, or to the British settlements on the coast of Africa, or British settlements in the East Indies, or any manufacture made of such article, unless in cases where a similar bounty is payable in Great Britain on exportation from thence, or where such bounty is merely in the nature of a drawback or compensation of or for duties paid over and above any duties paid thereon in Great Britain ; and where any internal bounty shall be given in either kingdom, on any goods manufactured therein, and shall remain on such goods when exported, a countervailing duty adequate thereto may be laid upon the importation of the said goods into the other kingdom. XVI. — That it is expedient for the general benefit of the British empire, that the importation of articles from foreign countries should be regulated from time to time in each king- dom, on such terms as may effectually favor the importation of similar articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other, except in the cases of materials of manufactures, which are or hereafter may be allowed to be imported from foreig'n countries duty free ; and that in all cases where any articles are, or may be, subject to higher duties on importation into this kingdom from the countries belonging to any of the States of North America, than the like goods are or may be subject to when imported as the growth, produce, or manufacture of the British colonies and plantations, or as the produce of fisheries carried on by British subjects, such articles shall be subject to the same duties on importation into Ireland, from the countries belonging to any of the States of North America, as the same are or may be subject to on importation from the said countries into this kingdom. XVII. — That it is expedient that measures should be taken to prevent disputes touching the exercise of the right of the inhabitants of each kingdom to fish on the coast of any part of the British dominions. XVIII. — That is expedient that such privileges of printing and vending books, as are or may be legally possessed within 220 APPENDIX, NO. IV. Great Britain, under the grant of the Crown or otherwise, and the copyrights of the authors and booksellers of Great Britain, should continue to be protected In the manner they are at present by the laws of Great Britain ; and that it is just that measures should be taken by the parliament of Ireland, for giving the like protection to the copyrights of the authors and booksellers of that kingdom. XIX. — That it is expedient that regulations should be adopted with respect to patents to be hereafter granted, for the encouragement of new inventions, so that the rights, privileges, and restrictions thereon granted and contained, shall be of equal duration and force throughout Great Britain and Ireland. XX. — That the appropriation of whatever sum the gross hereditary revenue of the kingdom of Ireland (the due collec- tion thereof being secured by permanent provisions) shall produce, after deducting all drawbacks, repayments, or bounties granted in the nature of drawbacks, over and above the sum of £656,000 In each year, towards the support of the naval force of the empire, to be applied In such manner as the parlia- ment of Ireland shall direct, by an act to be passed for that purpose, will be a satisfactory provision, proportioned to the growing prosperity of that kingdom, towards defraying, in time of peace, the necessary expenses of protecting the trade and general interests of the empire. Mr. Pitt moved an address to the throne relative to these resolutions. Lord Bcati- Lord Beauchamp opposed, on the ground of the hurry posS H°r and insufficiency of the plan. He denied that Ireland was S'" impatient for it:— It might crush the infant manufactories of Ireland in the first Shows how instance, and ultimately injure those of Great Britain dilct^ofire"' The vindication of it, on the allegation that the Irish parlia- J^an'ihad ment was determined to lay on protecting duties, was not well grounded In none of four instances produced was there hostility Beer was raised, because the Irish inland excise on it was raised. The duty on wire was pointed against Dutch wire, not British, and was only to last a year.... As to muslins and calicoes, there was only the appli- cation of an old law of Charles II. ; and the increase of duty been, THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 221 on sugar arose from the different principles on which the draw- back of our last duty was calculated, of which the Irish parlia- ment made the application, and fixed their port-duty accord- ingly In the case of woollens, the Irish parliament had recently disclaimed the principle ; and indeed the whole history of their rates is a proof that they have carried their commercial preference for Great Britain to as great a length as one counti'y can expect from another No recipro- city in these arrangements. British prohibitions on wool and fuller's earth perpetuated, while Irish bay yarn, linen yarn, and ftJIJ? *harac- raw hides secured to the British market for ever. In beer and ter of tiiesc spirits bounties are reserved, to give a decided superiority meSusto against Ireland. He further observed that the 11th and 12th ''®'"- propositions would also militate against her, and that the coast regulations of "bonds" and "cockets" would embarrass and tend to restrict that trade, which the Irish parliament desired England's to extend. That the 7th inconvenienced Ireland only, and as cncomage- ,,. Ill •), Tr ments. among several able opponents of these regulations. In 1799 and in 1800 he made powerful speeches in opposi- tion, and Avent 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 : — 240 APPENDIX, NO. IV. nunciation of them. 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 began to protect) to the overwhelming com- petition 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, &c. &c. He added, that what little protection remained in any particular, was herein provided to cease and determine after the lapse of a specified number of years. The com- ^0 riffhtlv Understand the effect of these arrangements, mercial po- o J o ' ireiand^at ^^ ^^ ncccssary to rcvicw, very briefly, the leading circum- that time, gtauces of Ireland's commercial position. She had, by the acts of 1779-80, obtained the freedom of foreign and colonial trade, both of export and of im- port. By the act of 1793 she had obtained liberty to re- export foreign and colonial goods from her own shores to England. She had, by an English act of the same year, got the loudly vaunted, but utterly illusory privilege of having an eight-hundred-ton East Indiaman to make up a cargo for the East, in her ports. But she had not free trade to the East, nor had she admission to English ports for her own goods. This latter she had been, and was very desirous of obtaining. In the hope that England would have made the concession, the Irish parliament, for some years after THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 241 1 780, refused the solicitations of their own merchants, to retaliate on her, by raising the Irish import duties. So eager were they to obtain it, that they jumped at the pro- positions of 1785, and, notwithstanding the violations of justice and the constitution which the propositions in- volved, had nearly adopted them, when Flood, aided speedily and powerfully by Grattan, woke up the public mind against them, and caused their abandonment. It was not till after a fair experiment and delay that the she haci not rGStrictcd Irish parliament, despairing of getting England to terms by English fair means, commenced retaliation. To this we have the "^tll her tm incontestable testimony oi the Commissioners of Kevenue ^loso- Enquiry in 1822 — an authority by no means disposed to be over-favorable to Irish interests, or over-anxious for the credit of the Irish parliament. In their Fourth Report, speaking of the system of restrictions on English goods, and bounties on their own, to which that parliament had had recourse ; they say, Ireland was, undoubtedly, instigated to the adoption of this English course by the exclusive spirit of the commercial policy of Eng- feri^gment. land. It will be found, that few exceptions in favour of the oft^is. sister-kingdom were inserted in the list of goods absolutely pro- hibited to be imported into this country (England), in which list, all goods made of cotton-wool, every description of manu- factured woollen, silk, and leather, together with cattle, sheep, malt, stuflFs, and other less important articles, were at one time comprehended. In this embarrassing situation of exclusion from the markets of Great Britain, and deriving little assistance from foreign trade, Ireland had no other course to pursue for the protection of her own industry, except that of mantalnlng, by restrictive duties on the importation from Great Britain, the manufacturing means she possessed for the supply of her own markets. What the Irish parliament had been seeking, was not an absolute free-trade with England, which they believed would cause the ruin of their struggling, though growing R 242 APPENDIX, NO. IV. manufactures, but some such arrangement as tlie following, suggested in the year 1780, by no less an authority than the English Board of Trade itself : The best plan is, that the two kingdoms lay on certain mo- derate duties, to be imposed on the manufactures of the other ; such as will secure a due preference in the home-market to like articles of its own growth and manufacture ; and yet leave to the sister kingdom advantages, though not equal to its own, yet superior to those granted to any foreign country. The duties payable on British goods imported into Ireland, seem, by their moderation, as well adapted to answer the purpose as any that could be devised : but to make this system complete, there should be added proper regulations with respect to bounties in future, and with respect to the duties on raw materials imported into each kingdom. It is, in the judgment of the committee, a great recommenda- tion of this plan, that if it should be carried into execution, and become the system in which both countries shall be bound hereafter to conform, it will secure them in future from the unpleasant contests, to which, in pursuit of their respective in- terests, they may be otherwise exposed ; and his Majesty, as sovereign of the two kingdoms, will be relieved from the dis- agreeable situation of having laws presented to him by the res- pective Houses of Parliament, for his assent, which, though beneficial to one of his kingdoms, may, in their opinion, be highly detrimental the interest of the other. But it suited not the temper of the manufacturing In- terests in England to make any such arrangement, and The con- their influence on the legislature prevented any step being her'doing"^ taken on this recommendation. However, the retaliatory ^°' measures to which Ireland was at length driven, alarmed the selfishness of those Interests, and compelled them to abandon the system of " leaving things as they were." The question then was, how to change them, without granting too much to Ireland. It was seen that such a change could be effected only by a Union, which, while it granted in appearance the commercial advantage that Ireland re- quired, would, as we shall immediately shew, nullify it in THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 243 effect^ by operatiou of the accompanying regulations. And ^°"]™f ^^^^^ this project of a Union had the further recommendation, England to that Ireland, in return for the apparent advantage alluded ^^^ ^"^''°- to, was to reduce at once to an utterly inefficient and insignificant amount, the import duties that had hitherto saved her home manufactures, and finally to abolish those duties altogether — and furthermore was to be subjected to the ruinously exhausting drains of capital, which were easily foreseen to be the inevitable consequence of the mea- sure in agitation. The advantage to Ireland of admission for her goods ks vro\\- , , . . . sionsnuga- mto English ports, was, as in the case of the propositions *^'Yitoi° i of 1785, nullified by the provision by which '■^countervail- commerce. ing' duties were put on them there, to balance the heavier excise duties which such goods of English manufacture had to pay. On the other hand English goods going to Ireland, got a drawback, on export from England, of the heavy English excise duty they had paid, and entering Ireland, met a much lower rate of excise, where at all ex- isting, and had consequently only a very moderate " coun- tervailing" duty put upon them here. The " drains of capital" alluded to, as occasioned by the ^^^ absence •^ ■' ^ '' leaves no Union, have been spoken of at large, in the article on the ^^°p^ ^o>' ^^^' ' ^ ^ ^ '- t' ' manufac- " Taxation Injustice," and therefore need not be dwelt ^'^^• upon here. They consist of the surplus revenue taken from Ireland — the payments for foreign goods received now through England, which formerly we received direct — and above all, the millions spent out of the country by the absentee proprietors. These last had no attraction to re- main in their nativ6 land, when the parliament was gone ; and the consequence has been, that they have emigrated in such numbers, that whereas a million and a half was the amount of this drain in 1801, it is now generally be- lieved to exceed four millions and a half — a sum equal R 2 244 APPENDIX, KO. IV. to the whole revenue that Ireland is able to contribute to the state, drailied^^*^ The aggregate of annual " drain" from Ireland at the a\vay. prescut uiomcnt, iar exceeds the double of her public revenue ! Wlien money was thus constantly, and in an annually increasing amount, flowing out of Ireland without return, during the period of years allotted by the act of Union for the gradual cessation of the remaining protecting duties, it can well be conceived that commercial enterprize, and all the operations of industry, dechned and grcAV less. In the twenty years then that elapsed ere the commercial arrangements of the Union were re-considered in 1821, the manufactures of Ireland may, at the best, be said to have dragged on a sickly and precarious existence; rather, than to have maintained, much less improved, the vigour that had marked their early growth before 1800. Capital and customers were ebbing out with unremitting and in- deed accumulating speed, and thus the home support was being destroyed, while the vision of an English market for Irish manufactures was dispelled by the hard realities of the high countervailing duties in English ports. The political economist will allow that a country sub- jected to such ruinous drains had an excuse for desiring to linger out a little longer under the faint protection of the Union duties. What has since occurred Avas easily fore- seen — that with the removal of aZ/ impediment to the entry of English goods, the weakened manufactm'crs of Ireland would be driven out even of their own impoverished home market, and the population of Ireland thrown altogether on the single resource of agricultural employment for sub- sistence. Hence the undue pressure on that means of in- dustry and subsistence ; and hence all the miseries and their consequences — the agrarian disturbances and crimes that we have had and have to deplore. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 245 Those duties might well have been left at least a while longer ; if only to give a practical proof to their advocates in Ireland, of their futility for any lasting good. The economists ought not to have dreaded to test their own doctrines. It would have been much to have secured by conviction, from the indisputable experience of facts, the assent of the Irish manufacturing community and those bound up with it, to the measure of abolition. Nor had English interests really any thing to dread from the further experiment. Irish manufactures, as we have said, were certainly and unremittingly declining and perishing. But the cruel spirit of commercial monopoly was not to be satisfied so long as any vitality remained ; and though the cries of the perishing artizans of Ireland did, l)y some strange chance, reach the ears of the English parliament in 1821, and procure some extension of the time originally marked out for the duration of the " Union Duties," yet in the very next year a commission was appointed, as it would seem, to Jind excuses for getting rid of them, and on its report their doom was sealed, and they were got rid of Avith as much haste as decency at all allowed."* * Scant as was the decency observed towards us in these respects, it wa* still less, or rather none at all, in others, since the Union. Notwithstanding, that in 1825, a committee (of course of the imperial parliament) had, after a patient and full enquiry, reported that " Ireland had undoubtedly strong- claims for every encourgement to her linen manufacture, at least to the extent of the annual grant of parliament;" (viz. £20,000, the remnant of the old promised encouragement to that manufacture ;) — notwithstanding this deliberate opinion, twice expressed in their report, the grant was re- duced three years afterwards one-half, and the succeeding year withdrawn altogether ! In the same way a grant of £10,000, voted annually since the Union to the Wide-streed Board, and defended by Sir Robert Peel, (when secretary for Ireland,) as no more than a fitting partial compensation to Dublin, for the evil consequences of the Union to that city, was withdrawn, a short time before the withdrawal of the linen grant, with quite as little apology or warning. And no later than last year (to pass over some other instances of jiarticular injustice) we had one general sweeping blow made at all the charitable institutions of Dublin, that received any aid from the public 246 APPENDIX, MO. IV. Since the abolition of these duties, the Englishman has had complete command of our market. The instances are many in which attempts in Ireland to restore some waning or perished manufacture, have been crushed by means of the temporary sacrifice of profit which the superior wealth purse. A commission was issued to enquire into the claims of such insti- tutions in Dublin to receive aid not given elsewhere. The report of the commissioners — conservative gentlemen of great respectability and most undoubtedly no Repealers — is an admirable rebuff to the petty prying jea- lousy that instigated such an enquiry. It would have been more dignified for a government to have sought information on the subject privately, ere committing itself by an overt act, betraying malice prepense ; and malice too that is now defeated of its object. The following is some of the main part of the report : " Immediately after the Union, Dublin, it may be said, ceased to be a metropolis as regards the wealthy, while it continued a metropolis as regards the poor ; and in no inconsiderable degree it has remained so since. The causes, therefore, which induced those who framed the articles of Union to introduce stipulations into that measure as regards Dublin, appears to us to be still in extensive operation. Other causes likewise (not, however, having effect on Dublin alone) — the increase of population, without a cor- responding increase in wealth, the want of capital, the decay of manufac- tures in Ireland, operating to increase the proportion of poor — have oper- ated likewise to increase rather than diminish the cogency of those reasons which led to the stipulations in the articles of Union. •' In evidence of this we beg leave to notice the increased accommodation which the governors at different periods, and with the sanction of govern- ment, have been compelled to supply in most of these institutions, and the increased grants, notwithstanding the financial difficulties of the empire, which various governments have deemed it necessarry to make for their support. " In further evidence of this disproportionate increase of the poorer classes in Dublin we have to observe that, notwithstanding the support thus rendered by government to certain institutions, others of a similar character, arising principally out of the exigencies of the lower classes, have been established and are supported, some by private means alone, and some partly from private means, and partly from local assessment. " We therefore submit that the necessity which was found to exist pre- vious to and at the time of the Union for extraneous support as regards Dublin, in aid of its principal charitable institutions, (arising, in our opi- nion, from the disproportion between the wealthy and the poorer classes of the community,) has, as was anticipated, increased since that period, and still continues, although, we trust and believe, it may be now gradually diminishing. "Dublin, therefore, with its population of upwards of 250,000, is, in our opinion, an exception to all other cities in the empire ; and we respect- fully urge, that because in London and the other large towns in England, private charity may have been found amply sufficient for the support of their public charitable institutions, it by no means follows, that in Dublin, where the poor are so numerous, and the rich comparatively are so few, THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 247 of the English capitalist enabled him to make, to undersell his rash Irish competitor. The worm at the vitals of Irish enterprize, is the want of capital, and till the latter is restored, there is little hope for our manufacturers and artizans. But to restore this capital, the Repeal of the Act of "wiube J- ' ^^ restored by Union was and is necessary. The parliament must be at Repeal. home; 1st, to give the absentees an inducement to come home ; 2nd, to enable us to stop the drains of revenue, by getting rid of the unjust burthen of English debt ; and, 3rd, to give us the means of making our own commercial arrangements with foreign countries, whereby we can not only prevent the recurrence of such reckless injury to our commercial interests, as was involved in the recent com- mercial negociations of England with France and Portu- gal, but we can obtain advantages, which our being bound now to the high tariffs of England, prevents us from obtain- ing in foreign countries; and furthermore, shall have all the duty paid by us on foreign imports credited to our own revenue, instead of, as now, going to swell the receipts of the English exchequer. Under this altered state of circumstances we should have a sum of from eight to nine millions of money, at the very least, annually spent in the country, which is now drained out of her, and as much lost to her as if thrown into the sea ! The question as to what should be the international ar- rangements between the two countries, after the Repeal, in matters of commerce, is one of too much weight to be it would be reasonable or just to expect from her citizens an extent of liberality which neither their numbers nor circumstances could fairly warrant." This answer shamed the government out of their plan of stopping the grants, which, after all," have been found not to have amounted since 1800 to more than 120,000/, ui the whole ! 248 APPENDIX, NO. IV. introduced incidentally. We therefore refer it to the con- cluding article of the Appendix; where the whole sub- ject of the future relations between Great Britain and Ire- land is dealt with. But it may be permitted here to remark, that, in any case, there is no disposition in Ireland to give, by high duties against English or other goods imported, an en- couragement to the smuggler to begin or carry on his demoralizing and crime-producing operations. Whether with England or any other country, our scale of duties in no case should overpass the moderate point at which re- venue, and revenue alone* (not protection — which, as to manufactures, really means premium to smuggling,) is attainable ; and attainable with the advantage of enabling internal duties to be lowered or abolished. We venture to prophesy, that in these, as in other mat- ters, there will be found very little difficulty on the part of Ireland, in coming to a settlement perfectly satisfactory to Great Britain as to herself — provided always that she be dealt with in good faith and good feeling. A just ar- rangement as to the present unjust liability to public debt, would go far towards securing a permanency of this dis- position on her part ; and towards obviating the necessity for taxation. It is for the interest of English capitalists themselves, that Ireland should have every facility and opportunity afforded that may develope her commercial and manufac- turing capabilities. The Englishman who attempts an en- terprize in Ireland finds the same difficulties and dis- couragements as the native. The want of rich customers, of steady markets, of manufactures subordinate and necessary to that on which he is engaged — a want which * Such revenue duties not however to be on the import of materials of manufacture. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 249 compels him to send to England for the construction or repair of some of his engines or tools of ordinary- use, or for the purchase of some tributary minor article — these impediments, greatly aggravated and increased by the combination (so often felt by us) of manufacturers resident in England, who had hitherto supplied the Irish market, and who, on the first attempt at competition, sacrifice their profits in order to undersell by rates ruinously low to a beginner, — soon dishearten and compel the abandon- ment of his design ; and induce him to look elsewhere for a profitable investment. Failing thus of a field in Ireland, and that at home (in England) being overstocked, English surplus capital has been forced to seek investments in countries in the other hemisphere, where the circumstances of natural posi- tion, or of peculiar legislation, or of both combined, ensured advantage for goods produced in the country, over import- ed articles. The contemptible fallacy, that " agitation has kept Eng- lish capital out of Ireland," falls to the ground at once, when Ave consider the continued civil distractions and end- less and sanguinary revolutions of the South American States, into which English capital has so largely and steadily flowed. Our sketch of the many commercial injustices inflicted Summary 1 • 1 /^ -r» • • • 1 -fUT 1 lemarks in upon this country by (jrreat liritam is now done. W e have conclusion. shown how uniformly intolerant has been the conduct of the latter. Every interest of ours checked, repressed, put in abeyance, when thought to come at all in contact with hers — delusive promises held out — lasting and reckless injury inflicted. At the beginning of the last century her cry was, that we were not fit for the woollen manufacture ; but that if we devoted ourselves to linen, we should have the highest 250 APPENDIX, NO. IV. encouragement in that branch. It has been the object of these pages to prove how she kept that promise " to the ear, but broke it to the hope," by giving greater encourage- ment to the Scotch linen, and to her own. The cry since the Union has been, that we ought not to think of any manufacture, but to devote ourselves to the supplying Great Britain vdth our agricultural produce. The tariff of last year proves that she does not hold herself bound to us in this particular either. In truth, she has done what, after all, was but natural ; attended to her own interests, and to her own interests alone. The misfortune to us has been, that she has had the power of controlling our interests. This power must be got rid of, if we would ever hope to see our country attain to that prosperity, of which Providence has so abund- antly given her the means, but of which she has so long been cruelly deprived by man. ADDENDA TO THE "COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES." No. 1. The progress of the Linen Trade of Ireland was as follows : Taking our figures, partly from M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary, (article '• Linen,'"') but mainly from the Report of the Hand-loom Weavers' Enquiry ; and taking also the seven years averages stated in that Report, to be the proper measure by which to estimate such progress, we find that — EXPORT OF IKISH LINEN. ri714 1,665,486 ) Increase in this period of The average of 7 years i-qa ^Q k.kp. q7q3 66yrs. 17,890,893 yds. including and ending J ^'^ 'y'^^^"^'^) Ditto, 2nd period, 18 yrs. respectively with the ] 1798 41,670,972 5 22,114,593 yards. ■""' [>8^'5 47,588.707 I^'J'sVSIqIT.WS A' to A very short calculation will shew, that had the linen trade progressed in the first period as it did in the second, it ought to have shewn an increase above the statement for 1714, of not less than eighty millions, instead of eighteen. And, similarly, had it progressed since the Union in the manner in which it did during the same second period stated above, it ought to have shewn an increase over that period, of not less than thirty millions, instead of being short of six millions ! But the defect since the Union is not only on comparison with the period that Ireland had the free management of her commercial concerns, but even in comparison with the period previous to 1780. It will be seen that at the rate of progres- sion in the period since the Union, nearly eighty years should 252 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. elapse ere the linen trade could make the same advance, that, under the guidance even of her fettered and restricted parlia- ment before 1780, she had made in sixty-six years! One of the assistant commissioners of the enquiry, whose report we quote, seeks to make it appear, that the increase since the Union is more valuable than the mere figures would denote : his remark is : *' Ireland lost in a great measure her coarse linen trade, owing to the prohibition placed on export of yarn in 1784, which forced the English manufacturers to turn their attention to providing yarn at home ; which they did so successfully, as not only to be able to be independent of a supply from Ireland, but also to drive the Irish out of the market in those coarse fabrics to which their mill-spun yarn was capable of being ap- plied. The exports of linen since 1 800 were chiefly of the finer linens, and therefore indicate a greater degree of prosperity of the linen trade than would at first appear." — Otway's Report H. L. Enquirii, p. 620. The over-anxiety of Mr. Commissioner Otway to prove that the Union has done every thing for us, has here led him into a mis-statement. If he were correct, then must the English manufacturers of 50 years ago, have been very different men from the keen, active, and enterprizing class they are at this day ; inasmuch as they must have taken not less than sixteen years (viz. from 1784 to 1801) to provide themselves elsewhere than from Ireland, with a material so much needed as linen-yarn! But the fact is, as Mr. Otway might have seen, had he consulted the debates of the Irish parliament during that time, and the j)ublications in Ireland having relation to commerce, that the English market became almost immediately shut to the Irish coarse linens, after the export of yarn to that market was stopped ; and that consequently the export from Ireland during much the greater part of the period 1784 — 1801, was of the finer description. It may be argued that the small proportion which the post- Union, increase of linen-export bears to that between 1780 and 1798, is mainly owing to the fact that there was not room for much further improvement ; the linen, like every other trade, having its limits. This, however, is in fact only another testi- mony to the beneficial influence of Irish home legislation, since under its short-lived auspices, the utmost limit was so nearly attained. And it remains for the advocates of the Union to sheiv, that had that measure never been carried, the six millions THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 253 increase up to 1825 would not have occurred by the mere force of the increase of demand in England, caused by the increase of population in that country, to say nothing of the continuance of that beneficial infuence which, on such good ground of in- disputable figures, we ascribe to " home-legislation." It is unanimously acknowledged and declared, tliat since 1825, when the traflBc between the two countries was assimilated to a coasting trade, and consequently official records ceased to be kept, all estimates of the commercial progress of Ireland are, at best, but good guesses. In the truly valuable " Irish Railway Report," drawn up by the lamented Mr. Drummond, this de- ficiency is spoken of, and deplored. He sought to supply it by taking the exaggerated reports of individual merchants ; who naturally enough wished to make their dealings appear as large as the wide range of probability at all allowed. With all his candour Mr. Drummond was not adverse to these exaggerations : it was a point with him, as with British writers in general, and persons reporting to the imperial parliament in particular, to make out, as far as possible, a '■'• prosperity case" for the Union. He therefore sets down our linen export to have been in 1 835, 70 millions of yards, without however attempting to say that that was a seven-years average. We can afford to admit, for the sake of argument, that the average was so high ; and yet the period 1780 — 1798 will be found to have proportionably exceeded it. If those 18 years gave aji increase of 22 millions of yards, the 35 years of the Railway Report ought to have given an increase of 42 millions. But they actually gave no higher amount than 28,600,000 yards ! There has been much parade about the success of this trade in the North. By some it is asserted strongly, by others denied. By others again — and those persons employed by government — nothing is declared positively. For instance, amongst others, one of the Hand-loom Commissioners of 1839, Mr. Commis- sioner Muggeridge. Mr. Commissioner Muggeridge declares his inability, "in common with all who have attempted the enquiry" before him, to say whether it is flourishing or not — and he states that opinions are divided on the subject in the North itself. The very controversy which exists as to the state of that trade is an unfavourable sign. When a branch of industry is really flourishing in any country, do we usually find, even among those at a distance from the scene of action, doubts and disputes 254 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. existing on the subject ? Yet they are to be found rife among persons intimately conversant with the linen trade in the North, as will be seen by the following extracts : — " Mr. William Kirk, a member of the linen committee of the county Armagh, says — * I think the linen trade is increas- ing-' " Mr. William Miller, a member of the linen committee of the county of Antrim, states — ' There has been an increase in the linen trade of Ballymena within the last seven years, but nevertheless there has been, generally speaking, a decrease in the linen trade of Ireland during the same period.' " Mr. Edward Sproule, a member of the county Tyrone committee, states — that ' the linen trade of Ulster is not so extensive as it was twenty years ago.' " Mr. John Walker, of Magherafelt, writes — ' I am of opi- nion the linen trade of Ireland is increasing in quantity, though the last two years make an exception.' " Messrs. William Orr and Sons, linen manufacturers at Loughgall, county Armagh, writes — ' We consider it decreasing in many particulars, and that the Scotch are taking a great deal of it from us.'" — Mr. Muggeridge's Report, Hand-Loom Weavers' Inquiry. In the second Report of the Committee of the Imperial House of Commons, June, 1825, there was a strong recommendation (based on a consideration of the strict justice of some encou- ragement to an important trade in a country so injured by the Union) that the annual grant to the linen trade should be con- tinued. But Goulburn, in the following year, reduced it one- half, and the year after abolished it entirely. A large proportion of the export at present consists of yarUy instead of being all of the fully manufactured article, as it ought to be, were the trade really at the high pitch of prosperity which the advocates of the Union would pretend. And even this yarn trade is decreasing. The following is from the annual finance accounts : — EXPORT TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES FROM IRELAND. VALUE OF 1839 1842 1844 Linen Manufactures, .. And Linen Yarn £ 63,847 172,602 £ 25,350 110,486 £ 14,320 36,915 THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 255 We cannot better conclude this article than by the following quotations from Professor Kane relative to the linen trade : — " In the work on Ireland, published by Mr. and Mrs. Hall, some statistical results are given, which they obtained by per- sonal inquiry in Belfast, and which, though probably above the truth, are not more exaggerated than is usual with such general estimates. They consider that there are in Belfast, now at work, 155,000 spindles, consuming 210 tons of flax per week, and that there are employed in the manufacture of flax, 170,000 hands. They estimate the total number of persons supported by the linen trade as not less than half a million ; that the an- nual value of the linen cloth manufactured in Ulster is not less than £4,000,000 ; the capital involved in its production not less than £5,000,000 ; and that the annual amount of wages paid to those engaged in the manufacture amounts to £1,200,000. This sum, for the 1 70,000 above mentioned, would make the average wages to be only 2s. 9d. per week. " The extent of this manufacture stands in such relief from the usual absence of all manufacturing industry in Ireland, that we frequently attach to it a degree of importance, and an idea of absolute magnitude that it does not really possess. Thus we often hear the linen manufacture spoken of as being the staple of this country, whilst wool and cotton are in return the natural manufactures of the sister kingdom. In reality, how- ever, Ireland is almost as much behind in this as in every other branch of industry. The town of Dundee alone is considered to manufacture as much linen as all Ireland, and the relation which the manufacture of flax bears in the three kingdoms, is exactly shown in the following table, which is extracted from the Report of the Factory Inspectors for 1 839, since which pe- riod no sensible alteration has taken place. " In England there were 1 69 mills, worked by 4,260 horse power, and employing 16,573 persons. " In Scotland 183 mills worked by 4,845 horse power, and employing 17,897 persons. " In Ii'eland forty mills, worked by 1,980 horse power, and employing 9,017 persons. " It is difiicult to reconcile this official return with the esti- mate of Mr. Hall, just before quoted ; as the proportion of home- spun and woven linen goods can scarcely be so considerable as to account for the discrepancy." 256 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. No. 2. MISCELLANEA, HAVING REFERENCE TO THE COMMERCE, MANU- FACTURES, INTERNAL PROSPERITY, &C. &C. OF IRELAND, BEFORE AND AFTER THE UNION. The *' Balance of Trade," or relative proportion to each other of a country's exports and Imports, was a test in much vogue in the last century, when the advantages or disadvantages of ex- ternal trade were to be estimated. Sounder notions of political economy have, to use an expressive French phrase, much ^^dis- credited" this test. The idea is exploded, that an import trade is bad for a country, merely because she pays in money for what she receives. Money has been recognized as to the full as much a " marketable commodity," as the "goods," or "produce," ordinarily so considered ; and where importation has been found in any case really disadvantageous, it has been, because of some peculiarity in the quality, not because of the quantity, ab- stractedly speaking, of the articles received. Again a great exportation has been seen not to be, of necessity, a great benefit. On the contrary it has come sometimes to be considered a great evil — as in the case of export of commodities wanted by the population at home — or where a valuable return is not certain and immediate. To come then to a proper judgment of the real commercial status of a country, the nature, as well as the quantity of her exports and imports must be enquired into ; and their effects, generally, upon the condition of the inhabitants. Our space limits us to a very brief and cursory examination of these points. We have seen in the article to which this is appended, how wretched was the commercial condition of Ireland before 1780 ; and some evidences have been recorded of her extraordinary advance subsequently. The rate of exchange was after 1780 steadily in her favor, in her dealings with England ; (as recorded in the report of a committee of the imperial parliament in 1804, upon the currency, &c. &c. of Ireland.) The committee to which we refer, although an English committee of an English Parliament, did themselves confess the prosperity of Ireland after 1782. They, to be sure, ascribe that prosperity to the THE COMMEKCIAL INJUSTICES. 257 mere fact of the establishment of the Bank of Ireland in 1783 ; but this inadequate cause for so great an effect, as the " rapid advances of trade, manufactures, and agriculture," which they speak of, (Report, page 12,) we need not delay to discuss ; being satisfied with their confession of the fact of those advances. The excess of the exports of Ireland, over what she received in return from England, (namely, as more than two to one, see Foster, debate in committee, 1799,) would of itself be enough to demonstrate the activity of her manufactures — her export of unmanufactured produce being comparatively nothing, aud her home-consumption being, in a very great over-proportion, sup- plied by herself. Comparisons will best shew the state of her home-consump- tion of those foreign articles, whose use is generally taken as the scale by which to estimate the degree of prosperity of a people. The following comparisons are not only the quantities consumed in Ireland at periods before and after the Union — but between those quantities and what were consumed in Eng- land at corresponding periods. The figures verifying them in detail will be found in the report of the committee of 1830, on the " State of the Irish Poor," — Mr. Spring Rice, the present Lord Monteagle, chairman — (see Appendices, G. I, and G. 2. pp. 112—125, No. 667 of 1830 Reports.) " Period from 1785 to the Union :— Tea — Increase of consumption in Ireland, 84 per cent. in England 45 do. From 1786 to the Union. Tobacco — Increase in Ireland, 100 do. in England, 64 do. From 1787 to the Union. Wine — Increase in Ireland, - 74 do. in England - - - 22 do. From 1785 to the Union. Sugar — Increase in Ireland, - - - 57 do. in England, 53 do. From 1784 to the Union. Coffee — Increase in Ireland, - - - 600 do. in England, 75 do. " Period from the Union to the year 1827 :- — Tea — Increase in England, 25 per cent. in Ireland, 24 per centc 258 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. Coffee — Increase in England, in Ireland, Sugar — Increase in England, in Ireland, Tobacco — Increase in England Decrease in Ireland, Wine — Increase in England, Decrease in Ireland, 1,800 per cent. 400 per cent. 26 per cent. 16 per cent. 27 per cent. 37 per cent. 24 per cent. 45 per cent. As to all these items, the latest official information is of the year 1825 — the records of trade between the two countries having ceased to be kept in that year ; and by far the greater part of the commodities enumerated coming to us through England. We have, in the preceding Addendum, shewn the progress of the linen trade in the period of legislative independence, as ad- vantageously contrasted with the preceding and subsequent periods. The defenders of the Union ordinarily lay much stress on the increased export of cattle, sheep, and provisions, since that measure. This export, however, is from a starving people ; and being so, the argument as to its great value to Ireland is not one to waste much time in considering. A curious fact has come out with reference to this subject. A return appeared in all the Dublin papers, in November, 1842, of the number of sheep and horned cattle at the great Fair at Ballinasloe, every year from 1790 to 1842. A statement of the number for the year 1 843 appeared in the papers last November. The follow- ing figures, thus obtained, we put in the same table, with figures from a Parliamentary Return of 1834, and the Irish Railway Report, shewing the export of the articles mentioned in two of the years included. We have no return of the export last year. Years. Sheep. Export of Ditto. Horned Cattle. Export of Ditto. 1799 1835 1843 77,900 62,400 62,726 800 125,000 9,900 8,500 8,815 14,000 98,000 The question naturally arises — what became of the 77,000 surplus sheep in the first year, as well as the sheep at the other fairs ? — Thei/ were eaten at home. As to oxen, 14,000 went away in 1799, and 98,000 in 18.35 ; THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 259 yet if we test the product of all Ireland in the former year, hy the most sufficient criterion of the amount at Ballinasloe Fair, we shall find that Ireland had then more for sale than in 1835, and consumed the greater part of the surplus over her export — exporting the remainder in the more valuable form oi provisions. The parliamentary documents quoted before, enable us to shew what the export of provisions was in the years 1799 and 1835. Year. Export of Cattle. Swine. Beef and Pork, Barrels. 1799 1835 14,000 4,000 98,000 76,000 278,000 140,000 There has then been since the Union, a decrease of the more valuable exports, (viz. provisions — valuable because of the labour employed at home in their manufacture,) — and an increase of the less valuable, viz. the live animals — less valua- ble to a country as an article of export, by reason of the small quantity of employment which is given in the preparing of it. As the diminution of the number of barrels of beef and pork will not, by any means, account for the great increase of the live export — while the whole number of cattle produced in Ireland in 1835, was, at any rate, not greater than in 1799 — it follows, that much of the excess of live export in 1835, must have been by deduction from the num,ber pi^eviously consumed at home — and therefore, that the home-consumers in the latter year, were considerably less than in the year before theUnion, notwithstanding the cent, per cent, increase of population. But it may be said, that the market of the Irish cattle and pro- visions was probably " ^forced one" before the Union. So far, however, was this from being the case, that there were actually duties on their export ; yet so active and profitable was the home-demand, that not only was there no complaint from parties in that trade, but on being offered by Mr; Foster, when Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, to have the exports made free, those parties actually declined the offer. The war could not be said to have forced the demand in 1789 ; for in the years 1787, 1788, and 1789, there was no war, and the average export of those years was 227,564 barrels — on which the amount given above for 1 799> was no more than a natural and moderate increase. s 2 •1^ 260 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. Since the Union, the home-market foi' these commodities hag become extremely limited ; and what advantage was gained by the extended market in England is now passing away. The tariff-reform of last session was one severe blow to our Irish monopoly, as it was called, of supplying the English market in these respects. A strange monopoly ! which amounted to no more than the privilege of sending over cattle and provisions, at of course heavy charges for freight, &c., &c., to compete in the English market with the same articles of native produce. This competition of course prevented the Irish dealer from charging his expenses in his prices, and therefore his profits were con- siderably reduced from what they would have been had the so- called " monopoly" really existed. In fact he but supplied the gap that the Englishman or Scotchman could not help leaving open. The measure of the session before last tends to narrow his market still more — and last year these interests received ano- ther heavy blow by the most unexpected reduction of the govern- ment contracts, from 26,000 tierces of beef and pork last year, to no more than 1,200 tierces ! Mr. Foster in 1799 said, that " Ireland exported no unmanu- factured wool ; it worked up all it had, and there was little reason to suppose the quantity would be enlarged, as the great ivicrease of agriculture and of the linen manufacture, gave a better profit in the land, than sheep afforded." Ireland has, since the Union, ceased for several years to work up all, or a considerable portion of her own wool. She exports the greater part of it now — and exports it in a way the least profitable to her, namely, on the back of the live animal. The following extract from a speech by a high conservative authority, was read by Mr. O'Connell, when opening the Repeal Debate in the Dublin Corporation, on the 28th of February, 1 843. It bears on the general state of Irish commerce since the Union. " I am now about to read you an extract from a speech pro- nounced by the late Rev. Doctor Boyton, on Saturday, the 23rd of February, 1833: — " ' The exports and imports, as far as they are a test of a de- cay of profitable occupation — so far as the exports and imports are supplied from the parliamentary returns — exhibit extraordi- nary evidences of the condition of the labouring classes. The importation of flax-seed (an evidence of the extent of a most im- portant source of employment) was — in 1790, 339,745 barrels ; THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 261 1800, 327,621 barrels ; 1830, 168,458 barrels. Tlie importa- tion of silk, raw and thrown, was — in 1790, 92,091 lbs. ; 1800, 79,060lbs. ; 1 830, 3, 1 901bs. Of unwrought iron, in 1 790, 2,97 1 tons; in 1800, 10,241 tons ; in 1830, 871 tons. Formerly we spun all our own woollen and worsted yarn. We imported in 1790, only 2,294lbs.; in 1800, l,880lbs. ; in 1826, 662,750lbs. An enormous increase. There were, I understand, upwards of thirty persons engaged in the woollen trade in Dublin, who have become bankrupts since 1821. There has been, doubtless, an increase in the exports of cottons. The exports were — in 1800, 9,147 yards; 1826-7, 793,873. The exports of cotton from Great Britain were — in 1829, 402,517,196 yards, value, £12,516,247, which will give the value of our cotton exports at something less than a quarter of a million — poor substitute for our linens, which in the province of Ulster alone exceeded in value two millions two hundred thousand pounds.' " In the first edition of this work, we here quoted at consider- able length, Mr. Alderman Staunton's admirable and over- whelming answers to Montgomery Martin and other hired ad- vocates of the Union, on the subject of the comparative pros- perity of Ireland before and since the Union.* Admirable and convincing as Mr. Staunton's arguments and statements are, we feel indisposed to give the same space to them in this edition : — First, as that indefatigable labourer in the service of Ireland has since published them in a detailed and distinct form himself; and second, as the Irish Repealers will never again condescend to delay the argument for their national rights with long discussions upon anything but the great principles of justice and the constitution. The following are extracts from a speech of Mr. Staunton's, in Conciliation Hall, December, 1843: — " Not satisfied with the general allegatioi\ that Ireland was in decay for eighteen years before the Union, Mr. Martin professes to give the details demonstrating the fact, and he takes them from the table of exports. What are these details? Certain items, fifteen in number, showing a trifling decline. There are two sides to an account, but Mr. Martin was satisfied with * The individual we allude to is the Author of the " History of the British Colonies." In 1833 or 1834 he was proprietor and editor of a London newspaper of some three weeks' publication and life, entitled the '■'Repealer," and advocating the Repeal of the Union violently. In 1842 and 1843 the government engaged him to trump up a statistical pamphlet against Repeal : and he has since been rewarded with the trea- surership of the island of Hong Kong. ?6§| ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. one, and therefore he omitted every insertion in the catalogue showing increase. He omitted in his table of Irish exports linen, bacon, beef, butter, oats, candles, &c. And even in playing oS" a great fraud he managed to commit a minor one, for instead of beginning, as he ought to have done, at 1782, and ending at 1800, for the sake of a petty advantage he began at 1785; and closed at 1798. Now, taking in the whole transactions, even within this limited period, there appears to be an increase instead of a deficit, of £3,536,000. But, taking the account in the fairest way, that is, contrasting the five years ending in 1782 with the five years ended in 1800, the increase reaches to £7,000,000. In the first period the aggre- gate of the exports in round numbers was ... £15,000,000 In the second period ... ... .. 22,000,000 Being an increase of ... ... ... £7,000,000 *' There was another minor fraud quite characteristic : there is a fluctuation in all commercial transactions : receipts will be in some years more and in others less. Mr. Martin looked into the sugar, wine, and tobacco tables, and seeing this, he took his amounts from the records of the years most favouring his argument. His sugar account takes in periods of three years, beginning in 1789 and ending in 1794 ; his wine account carries the last year to 1796, and his tobacco account only compre- hends two years — the first 1794, and the second 1796. By this device he is able to show his favourite " decline in all items." It seems, however, that if he took four years ended 1782, and four years ended 1800, as he ought to have done, there would be an increase under all heads, and it would be of the following magnitude: — sugar, 361,000 cwts. ; wine, 1,207,000 gallons; and tobacco, 12,800,000lbs. " One of the illustrations of gigantic advancement afterwards relates to Dublin, which it will be new to us all to hear to be flourishing. It seems there were 3,213 houses built in Dublin since the Union. This proves my case, says Mr. Martin. He has not been told, or if he had, he suppresses the fact, that many more houses than this are insolvent or falling into ruins. Mr. Thomas Ellis, member of Parliament for Dublin, delivered the following statement of Iiouse insolvencies to a parliamentary oommittcc in 1822 : — THK COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. HOUSES INSOLVENT IN DUBLIN. 1815 880 1816 1,072 1817 1,588 1818 2,397 1819 3,206 1820 3,989 1821 4,719 " This rather exceeds the number of the new houses. The fact is, that to this instant houses are dropping into insolvency and ruin in Dublin, and there are districts in which some once valuable and excellent residences are let for the amount of the taxes (cries of hear, hear). I see it boasted that the houses have increased throughout Ireland since the Union, Has not population doubled during the interval ? He undertakes to show progress in ship-building, but he comes down only to 1830. After that, he says, there were ' no returns.' There were re- turns, but as there was a decline after 1830 he gets rid of the acknowledgment by asserting, that after that all is a blank in the public records (hear, hear). He contrasts the customs' re- ceipts of Dublin in 1841 with the receipts of 1829. Why take these years specially? Because 1841 had the advantage over 1829 of the sugar duties, which were paid in England in 1829, — but in Ireland in 1841. "Another great agent in the deception which Is practised, and it is scarcely less operative than the former, is tonnage (hear). Tonnage is the capacity of ships to carry cargoes, and it is reckoned, whatever may be the bulk or value of their cargoes. If ships carry blocks of stone, coals, even the mud of a river, tonnage is reckoned. One would think it ought to be taken cautiously in inquiries such as we are engaged in, but I would beg the meeting to attend for a moment to a passage referable to it, in the ' Memoirs of the Union, by a Catholic' His words are the following: — 'The population of London, as com- pared to Dublin, is supposed to be nearly as 8 to 1 ; the regis- tered steam tonnage is only about 4|^ to 1. We have the steam tonnage of Dublin exceeding that of Glasgow, more than doubling that of Liverpool, more than three times that of Bris- tol or Hull, and nearly equalling that of Liverpool, Bristol, and Hull, combined. We have also the small town of Londonderry with a steam tonnage, of 2,663 tons, more than one-half that of Liverpool, and nearly equalling Bi'istol or Hull.' (Memoir 263 264 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. of the Union, p. 74.) [While Mr. Staunton was reading this passage, there were several bursts of laughter.] I am glad to collect from you that laughter is the best answer to this state- ment of the ' Irish Catholic' in the ' Memoir of the Union.' Think of London being only four and a half times above Dublin in shipping, though it has eight times the superiority in popu- lation ! (hear, hear). Think, again, of Dublin exceeding Glas- gow, and more than doubling Liverpool, and surpassing Bris- tol or Hull in a threefold degree (laughter). Above all, think of Londonderry, which is more than half Liverpool, and nearly equal to Bristol or Hull (loud laughter). This, however, is only in registered steam tonnage : then we may conclude that this tonnage is of little reckoning (hear, hear). Not thus, thinks the ' Irish Catholic,' for whatever the registered steam tonnage is, he says you may charge four times the amount against the country. Not thus thinks Montgomery Martin, who, as be- comes him, is not satisfied with multiplying steam tonnage by 4, but by 10 (laughter and cheers). My notion, however, is that instead of adding to steam tonnage, we ought to substract greatly from it. A steamer sometimes carries mail bags, at other times bags and passengers, to spend money in Eng- land ; at other times half cargoes, at other times quarter and one-tenth cargoes, and the tonnage has one reckoning all the while (hear, hear). The steamers sail at stated times, what- ever may be their cargoes. This remarkable thing is to be said of tonnage, that the ships which entered the Irish ports in the last year were represented to be 18,000, while the ships which entered the British ports were only 35,000. Hence you would infer that Ireland had more than half the shipping transactions of Great Britain, though, if you look to registry, we are to Great Britain as only 1 to 14, and if you look to building, we are only as 1 to 50 (hear, hear). But a more extraordinary thing still is, that though 18,000 vessels entered our ports last year, only 9>700 left them (hear, hear). What became of the other 8,300 ? Did they remain in our ports ? Not at all ; they came with coals, and they carried away gold, and mud from the river LIffey." The following are extracts from articles published by Mr. Staunton in his newspaper, on the same subject : — " To remove cavil, however, on the one point, let (Mr. Mar- tin says) attention be directed to the following table, In which quantities, instead of values are expressed, and then let any HONEST MAN Say whether the assertion be correct, that Ireland THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 265 rapidly increased in prosperity during the few years that elapsed from 1782 to 1800, when ' England produced the Union, be- cause she was becoming jealous of the increasing prosperity of Ireland,' because she could not tolerate the rapidly advancing prosperity of Ireland. " Next to this follows a table of fifteen columns, and the result is anticipated by a heading, in which it has declared, that Ht shows a decrease on every item of exports' The items are the following : — Wheat, Rape, Worsted yarn. Barley, Kelp, Cows and oxen, Meal, Tallow, Herrings, Tongues, Calf skins Drapery, Wool, Linen yarn. Colonial merchandize *' We now beg to apprize the reader that we are about to expose a fraud — a downright, absolute, barefaced fraud — which we believe to be wholly unexplained. It is quite true, that under the ' items' selected, decrease is observable. But Mr. Martin's ' items' do not contain the whole catalogue. They do not include even some of the principal articles. They do not comprise any of the following : — Aqua Vitae, Hams, Bacon in Flitches, Beef, Butter, Candles, Copper Ore, Oats, Feathers, Glass, Hides, Hogs, Hogs' Lard, Plain Linen, Coloured Linen, Linen and Cotton mixed. Pork, Soap, Flax Seed. <' Mr. Martin gave his readers fifteen columns of figures, but he omitted nineteen, these comprising some of the principal articles, such as the great staple conmiodity, Linen. In his list of exports he absolutely excludes even Linen ! ! ! Now he cannot plead negligence, forgetfulness, or inability to find out all the commodities he might be disposed to take into his cal- culations. All the columns of articles were before him — the 266 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. nineteen as well as the Jifteen — and his process was simply that of skipping over every amount that would tell against his case ! '"A decrease on evert/ item of export' So proclaims Mr. Martin in the very heading of his fabricated tables. Now, what was the result on the whole of the transactions within the years to which he refers ? He takes two periods of seven years each — one from 1785 to 1791 j and the other from 1791 to 1798. The following will show the total produce of all exports within the the time : — First Period. Second Period 1785 3,737,068 1792 . . 5,321,290 1786 3,957,843 1793 . 4,995,406 1787 . 4,238,333 1794 . 4,639,301 1788 . 4,361,664 1795 . . 4,704,732 1789 4,103,349 1796 . 5,013,283 1790 4,826,360 1797 . 4,533,693 1791 4,863,426 1798 . 4,316,592 30,088,043 33,524,297 30,088,043 Balance in favour of second period 3,436,254 " Would the reader be prepared for any such result as this when he was first apprised of Mr. Martin's ' decrease on every item ?' " The two periods referred to were most favourable for the legerdemain as to 'decrease on every item,' and therefore they were selected for that reason. Our worthy economist did not venture upon any comparison of totals in these periods, because they would show how every one of his items of decrease were counterbalanced very decidedly by amounts of increase. How- ever, he thought he could not well omit some general table of exports; but instead of going back to 1785 for his figures, he commences at 1790. He should of right have taken 1782 in the first instance, (or rather an average of years preceding it,) as the starting point — but why not, in making out his general table, begin again at his favourite '85 ? We have searched for a motive, and have found it iu the fact, that if he went back even to 'So he would lose some of his fifteen items of decrease. THE COMMEUCIAL INJUSTICES. 2C7 Instead oi fifteen he would have only e^eve?i. Taking, however, 1790 as a commencement, and comparing the next succeeding five years with the five years following them, (including one of rebellion,) he is able to give an item of general decrease. But his business was, not to contrast 1790 with 1799, but 1782 with 1800. This could best be done by a statement of the trans- actions of five years preceding both periods, and that, honestly made, let us see what case would be left to Mr. Montgomery Martin : — Irish Exports in 5 years, ending 1782, 1778 .. 3,225,581 1779 . . 2,702,043 1780 .. 3,003,251 1781 .. 2,880,430 1782 .. 3,375,692 Irish Exports in 5 years, ending 1800. 1796 .. 5,013,283 1797 .. 4,533,693 1798 .. 4,316,592 1799 .. 4,455,339 1800 .. 3,903,841 15,186,997 22,222,748 15,186,997 Difference in favour of the latter 5 years £7,035,751 " So much for Mr. Martin's ' decrease on every item.' We need not again point to the reader's notice how much the con- trast is affected by the peculiar years in the latter interval. One of them was a period of actual insurrection — three were years, at least, of inquietude. " We have seen what Mr. Martin has made of the illustrations derivable from exports. He next proceeds to articles of luxury imported, and to show that in them there was also a decrease, he gives tables relative to sugar, wine, and tobacco importations. These tables are the following- : — SUGAR. Cwts, 1789-1790-1791 1792-1793-1794 Decrease 617,893 567,215 50,678 WINE. Gals. 1789-1790-1791 1796-1797-1798 Decrease 4,195,454 3,069,606 1,125,8-18 268 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. 1794 1795 TOBACCO lbs. 9,42(3,211 7,874,409 Total 17,300,620 1798 1799 lbs. 4,894,121 5,876,172 Total 10,770,293 " The reader sees here another change in the selection of years under every head. Why was this ? On looking over the items in a long column of amounts, Mr. Martin saw that there were fluctuations, and he took his data in each case from that part of the column which best answered his purposes. The reader will better understand this when we take a few quantities from the sugar table given in Mr. Spring Rice's Appendix to the Poor Report of 1 830 :— SUGAR ENTERED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION. 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 191,748 211,977 214,168 161,302 196,371 209,642 227,978 182,668 231,233 228,838 263,603 355,662 '* The reader observes by a glance at this range of figures, that if in making his sugar contrast, Martin took any years but those which he adopted, the result would make against his con- clusion. In wine, he took the years 1796-7-8, and for his tobacco table he brought in 1795. If he did the like in his sugar table, he could make no exhibition of his favourite deficit. Why did he not go to 1799 in sugar as well as in exports? Because up to 1799 su 12 Number of hands employed in 1 800 - - - 4,938 Do. in 1840, 682 WOOL COMBING. Master wool combers in 1 800, _ - . _ 30 Do. in 1834, 5 Number of hands employed in 1 800 - - _ 230 Do. in 1834, 66 CARPET MANUFACTUTRE IN DUBLIN. Master manufacturers in 1800, " - - - 13 Do. in 1841, 1 Number of hands employed in 1800, - _ - 720 Do. in 1841, only the men employed by Mr. Sheridan. BLANKETS. Blanket manufacturers in Kilkenny, in the year 1 800, 5& Do. in 1822, 12 Operatives employed in 1800, " - - - 3,000 Do. in 1841, 925 274 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX, NO. IV. RATTEENS AND FRIEZES. Number of persons supported by the woollen manufac- ture at Roscrea in the year 1800, - - - 9OO In the year 1841 not one comber permanently employed. Persons deriving employment and maintenance from the cotton manufacture at Belfast, and within ten miles round it, in the year 1800, . - _ . 27,000 Do. in 1839, .... 12,000 to 15,000 whose wages were miserably reduced, almost to the standard of a day labourer. Nurnber of calico looms at full work at Balbriggan in 1799, 2,000 Do. in 1841, 226 SILK MANUFACTURE IN DUBLIN. Number of broad looms in 1800, - - - - 2,500 Do. in 1840, 250 HOSIERY. In Dublin the number of hosiery frames was, in 1 800, 329 Do. in 1840, 80 In Cork the number of hosiery frames was, in 1800, - 200 Do. in 1840, say 12 The hosiery trade has become almost extinct at Belfast, Lisburn, Clonmel, Limerick, Waterford, Carrick, Kil- kenny, Carlow, Portarlington, Maryborough, Newry, Dundalk, Armagh, and Drogheda. STUFF SERGE IN DUBLIN. Master manufacturers in 1 800, _ _ _ - 25 Do. in 1841, . 1 Number of hands employed in 1800, _ - _ 1,491 Do. in 1834, - 131 FLANNEL MANUFACTURE. Looms at work in the County Wicklow in the year 1800, 1000 Do. in 1841, 0! N.B. — The County Wicklow was the principal seat of this trade.* * A Trade and Commerce Committee of the Association, for which I moved early in the last year, received from the tradesmen a sad confir- mation of the foregoing statements ; with no variation, save where stating further decline and loss. Mr. Ray, at the request of the same Committee, has more than verified the accounts of decay of trade, &c., in the provincial towns. THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. 275 When to all these statements, (which, if space and time per- mitted, could be easily increased in number, and equalled in force), we add the accumulated evidence and declarations by indi- vidual writers and royal commissioners, parliamentary commit- tees and speakers, as to the appalling destitution of one-half oi. the population of Ireland, the assertion of ^^giant-stride pros- perity since the Union^' becomes a cruel insult ! The assertion of any general prosperity is scarcely better. And where any particular interest can be shewn to have thriven to any degree of importance, such a result can in no way be rightfully ascribed to the operation of the Union, until it be first shewn that the same would not have occurred, had the Irish parliament been still in existence. JOHN O'CONNELL. T 2 APPENDIX, No. V. "MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CARRIED." On this subject we copy the following Report of the Committee of the National Association of Ireland, on the means by which the Union was carried. — (First Series of Repeal Reports, 1840) : — Your Committee deem it necessary to make a short prelimi- nary statement with regard to the state of Ireland under her own Parliament. The centuries of misrule and oppression — the shackles and restrictions which were laid upon Irish trade and commerce — and the baleful spirit of national antipathy and sordid tyranny, b^ which the English government had conducted the affairs of Ireland, produced their natural consequences in Ireland. The gentry were embarrassed or loaded with debts — their income small, their incumbrances great — domestic manufactures were crushed by direct violence on the part of the British government, and the extreme of misery pervaded all the labour- ing and poorer classes of the population. Such was the state of Ireland, when the successful insurrec- tion of the American colonies seemed to rouse her from the torpor produced by the faithless tyranny of our British rulers. We call that tyranny faithless, because it was exercised in direct violation of the Treaty of Limerick — that treaty was a 278 APPENDIX KO. V. solemn compact made between the Irish people in arms, and the King of England, William the Third, theretofore unrecog- nized by the Irish people. Upon the faith of that treaty, the Irish nation submitted to King William — they laid down their arms, relying upon Bri- tish integrity ; and in return for the constitutional rights which they stipulated for, they gave to the British crown the peace- able possession of this beautiful island, the fairest and most fertile portion of the European states. They received, in recompense, the plighted faith and honour of the British government, for the security and stability of the liberty of the Irish people. Never was there more full value given for any stipulation or compact, than that given by the Irish army and people to the British crown on that occasion — but never, alas ! was public faith and honour so basely, so vilely, so outrageously, so de- gradingly violated, as the British faith and honour were to the Irish people ! This is part of history, and remains as a record of the most dishonouring infamy to the British name and nation. For near a century the hideous and sanguinary laws by which the treaty of Limerick was violated, filled Ireland with wo, with misery, with confiscation, with, insecurity, with squalid wretchedness. At length in 1778, Ireland roused herself from her death slumber. The repeal of the penal laws against the Catholics commenced ; and the distress and danger in which England was involved by her contest with the American colonists, aided as they were by France and other continental powers, enabled the Irish people to extort for Ireland a fkee trade to all parts of the world, in spite of the desperate opposition of the British government. Came the glorious era of 1782! — Ireland, in her strength' and her virtue, asserted her Legislative Independence, and took her place for the first time amongst the nations of the earth. Prosperity unexampled in the annals of modern or ancient history followed her independence — prosperity, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial No nation in Europe ever made such progress in so short a time as Ireland did, under the fostering care of her own legislature, from the time of her legislative independence in 1782, until she felt the effects of the measvires taken to produce the legislative Union. MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CARRIED. 279 We think It would be impossible to deny, that this prosperity was viewed with a jealous eye by the English people and government. They were expressly charged with this jealousy by the opponents of the Union, and in particular by Bushe, the late Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, who ex- pressly stated, that " the Union was the denial of the RIGHTS OF NATURE TO A GREAT NATION, FROM AN INTOLER- ANCE OF HER PROSPERITY." So early as 1794, the project of the Union was broached, and apparently matured by the Pitt cabinet — we have this distinctly stated in the public documents of the day. It was Pitt's wish to carry the Union in a conciliatory manner, and Lord Fitzwilliam was sent over to Ireland shortly after, for that purpose. Unhappily the truculent Beresford Party prevailed over the milder counsels of Pitt, and it was determined to effect the Union in a manner which should lay Ireland completely at the feet of England, and enable the British government to dictate its own terms. The opportunity to cari'y out this iniquitous project was soon attained ; the spirit of republicanism engendered by the French revolution, spread through the nations of Europe. lu Ireland it met a congenial soil, prepared by the grievances and oppressions of the British government — but the outrages against religion, and the attacks upon Christianity itself, of the French Jacobinical leaders, disgusted the Catholic people of Ireland, and naturally and justly terrified the Catholic clergy ; and thus a great check was given to the spread of revolu- tionary doctrines amongst the Catholic mass of the popula- tion. It was otherwise amongst the Presbyterians of Ulster — they had a natural tendency to republicanism, and they shewed themselves active partizaus of their favourite doctrine. They framed and extended a treasonable system of organization — first, civil — and then assuming a military form, in secrecy, and with as much concealment of their real designs and internal organization as they could possibly assume. They miglit have been more formidable, but that an anti- Catholic antipathy pre- vented them from cordially uniting with the Catholic population, and thereby prevented their becoming as powerful as they other- wise might have been. Such was the state of Ireland at the time it was determined to carry the Union, 280 APPENDIX, NO. V. The means used were these — First — The spirit of revolu- tionary FURY WAS ENCOURAGED ! THE REBELLIOUS DIS- POSITION WAS ACTUALLY FOSTERED, UNTIL IT WAS MADE TO EXPLODE ! ! AND BITTER RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS WERE PRO- iBtfOTED AMONGST ALL CLASSES OF THE PEOPLE ! ! ! For the truth of these allegations there are abundant proofs —they are to be found in the recollections of hundreds and thousands of us who remember these things which we sorrow- fully witnessed — they are to be found in all the debates on the Union — in the accusations and appeals of the opponents to that measure — in the admissions and boastings of its advocates. But the most powerful evidence of the entire, is the Report of the Irish House of Lords, printed in the latter end of the year 1798. By that report it appears that the revolutionary spirit and military organization of the United Irishmen commenced in Ulster — the focus was in the town of Belfast — it spread through the greatest number of the Protestants and Presbyte- rians, especially the latter, of that province. The superior officers had all their meetings in Ulster — amongst others the colonels met monthly, and gave in their reports of the strength and state of discipline of their various regiments — privacy was observed, of covirse, as much as possible — but one of the Colonels was a spy in the pay of the Treasury, and he regularly, after each meeting of colonels, made a report to the government of all their proceedings. The Irish government could therefore at once have seized the entire staff of the rebellion — they could stay its progress, and crush its hopes, by arresting at once all its leaders — but they allowed it to run on and augment for about eleven months, without interruption. All this appears from the Report of the House of Lords, above alluded to. Why did the government allow the organizations to go on, and the colonels to continue their meetings for ten or eleven months without interruption ? The answer is obvious — the government had an ulterior object in view, to attain which they thought any sacrifice of blood cheap — that object was — the UNION!!! It is true, they speculated too dangerously — the like experi- ment will never be made again ; they imagined that between the armed force which they then commanded, and the powerful auxiliary of the bigotry of the Northern rebels, they could MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CARRIED. 281 easily suppress the rebellion, when it became just ripe enough to frighten the country into the Union. But they almost fatally miscalculated. Wexford, without any previous organization, ivas driven into rebellion by the ferocity of an unhappy nobleman. Lord Kiugsborough, and of his regiment of militia ; and if any one other county had been roused to an exertion similar to that made by the men of Wexford, the rebellion would have been a revolution, and the intended Union tvould have been exchanged for an actual and perpetual separation. Even the unforeseen excess to which the rebellion extended, was converted by the Unionists into further means for carrying the Union. The alarm and dismay became greater — the con- fusion more complete — the rancour of party spirit more virulent — Irishmen were rendered more incompetent to protect them- selves — and thus their inherent rights were spoliated with ma- lignant satisfaction and perfect facility. On this subject also the powerful eloquence of Plunket was heard to denounce the crime, and to call for vengeance on the criminals. He accused the Government — we use his own ■words — ^'' of fomenting the embers of a lingering Rebellion — of hallooing the Protestant against the Catholic, and the Catholic against the Protestant — of artfully keeping alive domestic dissensions, for the purposes of subjugation," in other words, carrying the UNION. Secondly — The second means for carrying the Union were — " The deprivation of all legal Protection to Liberty or Life — the familiar use of Torture — the Trials by Courts-Martial — the Forcible Sutpression OF Public Meetings — the total Stifling of Public Opinion — and the use of Armed Violence." All the time the Union was under discussion, the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended — no man could call one hour's liberty his own. All the time the Union was under discussion, Courts- Martial had unlimited power over life and limb. Bound by no definite form or charge, nor by any rule of evidence, the Courts-Martial threatened with Death those who should dare to resist the spoliation of their Birth-Rights. There was no redress for the most cruel and tyrannical imprisonment. The persons of the King's Irish subjects ivere at the caprice of the King's ministers. The lives of the King's Irish subjects uere at the sport and whim of the boys, 282 APPENDIX, NO. V. young and old, of the motley corps of English militia, Welsh mountaineers, Scotch fencihles, and Irish yeomanry. At such a moment as that, when the jails where crammed with unaccused victims, and the scaffolds were reeking with the blood of unt7'ied wretches — at such a moment as that was it, that the British minister committed this act of Spoliation and Robbery, which enriched England but little, and made Ireland poor indeed. Besides the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the con- sequent insecurity to personal liberty — besides the existence of courts-martial, and the consequent insecurity of human life — besides all these, actual force was used — meetings of counties, duly convened to deliberate on the measure, were dispersed by military force. It was not at Maryborough or Clonmel alone that the military were called out, horse, foot, and artillery, to scatter — and they did scatter — meetings convened by the legal authorities, to expostulate, to petition against the Union. Force was a peculiar instrument to suppress all constitutional oppo- sition. Why should we dwell longer on this part of the subject, when in a single paragraph we have, in eloquent language, a masterly description, which easily supersedes any attempt of ours ? Here are the words of Pl,unket, " / will be bold to say, that licentious and impious France, in all the unre- strained excesses that anarchy and atheism have given birth to, has not committed a m,ore insidious act against her enemy, than is now attempted by the professed champion of civilized Europe, against Ireland — a friend and ally — even in the hour of her calamity and distress. At a moment when our country is filled with British troops — whilst the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended — whilst trials by courts-martial are carrying on in tnany parts of the kingdom — ivhile the people are made to believe that they have no right to meet and to deliberate — and whilst the people are palsied by their fears — at the moment when lue are distracted by internal dis- sensions — dissensions kept alive as the pretext of our subju- gation, and the instrimient of our future thraldom ! I I — Such is the time in which the Union is proposed." Thirdly — The Union was accomvlished by the most OPEN, BASE, AND PROFLIGATE CORRUPTION THAT EVER YET STAINED THE ANNALS OF ANY COUNTRY. The leading feature, after all, in the Union was, the daring profligacy of the corruption by which it was carried. It was MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CAUUIED. 283 reduced into a regular system. It was avowed in the House. It was acted on every where. The minister set about purchas- ing' votes — he opened office with full hands. The peekage was part of his stock in trade, and he made some two scores of peers in exchange for union votes ! The episcopal bench was brought into market, and ten or twelve bishopricks were trucked for union votes ! ! " The bench of justice" be- came a commodity, and a chief-justice, and eight puisne judges and barons, ascended the bench, as the price of votes for the UNION ! ! ! It would extend beyond our calculation to make out a list of the generals, and admirals, and colonels, and navy captains, and other naval and military promotions, which re- warded personal or kindred votes for the Union. The revenue departments have long too been the notorious merchandize of corruption. It is not surprising, therefore, that the board of excise and customs either conjointly or sepe- rately, and the multifarious other fiscal offices, especially the legal offices, were filled to suffocation, as the rewards of Union VOTES. The price of a single vote was familiary known — it was 8,000^. in money, or a civil or military appointment to the value of 2,000/. per annum. They were simpletons who only took one of the three, the dexterous always managed to get at least two out of three ; and it would not be difficult, perhaps, to mention the names of twelve, or even a score of members, who con- trived to obtain the entire three — the 8000/., the civil appoint- ment, and the military appointment. Lord Castlereagh actvxally declared in the House of Com- mons, that he would carry the Union, though it might cost more than half a million in mere bribes. His words as re- ported by G rattan, were, " Half a million or more were ex- pended some years ago to hy^eak an opposition — the same, or a greater sum, may be necessary noiv." Such was the open, the unblushing, the impudent effrontery of Lord Castlereagh ; — Grattan added, he (Lord Castlereagh) " had said so in the most extensive sense of bribery and corruption. The threat was proceeded on, the peerage sold, the caitiffs of corruption were every where — in the lobby — in the street — on the steps — and at the doors of every pai'liamentary leader — offering title to some, offices to others, corruption to all." The present Lord Chief Justice Bushe was more vehement in his exposure of the atrocious means used to carry the Union. He stated " that the basest corruption and artijice ivere ex- 284 APPENDIX, NO. V. erted to promote it ; that all the worst passions of the human heart were entered into the service — and all the most de- praved ingenuity of the human intellect was tortured to de- vise new contrivances of fraud." Such were the means by which the Union was carried. It was not a compact — it was not a bargain — it was the govern- ment, in the words of Lord Plunket, availing itself of the calamity and distress of Ireland, in a manner worse than im- pious and licentious France would have done to her bitterest enemy. And yet, with all these resources of intimidation and cor- ruption, the Union was defeated in the first session in which it was brought forward ; and it was proved then to be impossi- ble to bribe a sufficient number of the members of the Irish House of Commons to vote away the independence of their country. Another plan was therefore adopted, after the defeat of the measure in 1799 ; — some thirty or forty of the Irish members, who could not be induced to sell their votes, made a species of compromise, by selling their seats to the government, and thus retired from parliament. The government thereupon filled those seats with Scotch and English officers, having no connec- tion whatever with Ireland beyond their casual residence there with their regiments, and who having filled the seats so vacated, formed the actual majority by vjhom the Union was carried. Besides all this, it is perfectly clear that the Irish parliament liad no right whatsoever to vote away their country's indepen- dence. The King could not attach the allegiance of the Irish people to any foreign crown ; to France, for example, or even to Han- over ; and the Irish parliament had still less right to swamp the Irish constituencies and Irish representatives by Scotch or English constituencies or representatives. These opinions are not merely theoretical : and they rest upon much higher authority than that of your Committee. They are the language, and the distinctly pronounced judg- ment, of the most eminent men in the legal profession in Ire- land. Saurin, who Avas afterwards for more than twenty years attorney-general in Ireland, declared that the House of Com- mons had no authority to pass the Act of Union. His words were " You may make the Union binding as a law, but you CANNOT make IT OBLIGATORY ON CONSCIENCE. It will be obeyed as long as England is strong : but resistance to it MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CARRIED. 285 WILL BE IN THE ABSTRACT A DUTY : and the exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question of prudence." Such was the language of Saurin, which he never denied, retracted, or qualified : on the contrary, he unequivocally pro- nounced the struggle to get rid of the Union, to be in the ab- stract "A duty." Let it be remembered, that the man who preached this doc- trine was afterwards offered, and refused, the office of Lord Chief Justice of Ireland ; and was actually the attorney-general in Ireland for above twenty years ; enjoying more of the con- fidence of the British government, than any other law officer ever did or ever will. He it was that declared the Union not to be obligatory on conscience; but, on the contrary, the resist- ance to it to be A DUTY. Another more eminent lawyer still — one who has been since appointed to the office of Master of the Rolls in England, then elevated to the peerage, then made Chief Justice of the Com- mon Pleas in Ireland ; then made (and he now is) Lord High Chancellor of Ireland — Lord Plunket. This greatest of con- stitutional lawyers has left on imperishable record, his senti- ments as to the legal effect of the Act of Union. Here is the solemn legal judgment of Lord Plunket on the competency of Parliament to pass the Act of Union : — " /, in the most express terms, deny the competency of Parliament to do this Act. I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands upon the constitution. I tell you, if circum- stanced as you are, you pass this Act, it will be a nullity, and that no man in Ireland will be bound to obey it. I MAKE this assertion DELIBERATELY. / repeat it, and call on any man who hears me, to take down my words. You have not been elected for this purpose — you have been appointed to make laws, 7iot legislatures. You are appointed to act under the constitution, not to destroy it. You are appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, and not to transfer them ; and if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the government ; you resolve society into its original ele- ments, and no man in the land is bound to obey you." After some pointed illustrations of the practical truth of this constitutional doctrine, this eminent lawyer went on to address the Irish House of Commons thus : — " Yourselves you may extinguish, but parliament you cannot extinguish ! It is en- throned in the hearts of the people — it is enshrined in the sanctuary of the constitution — it is immortal as the island it 286 APPENDIX, NO. V. protects. As well might the frantic jnaniac hope that the act which destroys his miserable body, should extinguish his eter- nal soul. Again I therefore warn you, — do not dare to lay your hands on the constitution ; it is above your power P Such were the means by which the Union was carried, and such was the inherent radical effect, in point of law and of conscience, in that measure. It is right to see how this in- herent vice in the creation of the Union — how the bad spirit in which it was proposed and carried, was exhibited by another eminent lawyer. We shall call on the public to listen to the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Bushe upon that subject — this is his language : — " I see nothing in it (the Union) but one question — will you give up the country? I forget for a moment the unprin- cipled means by which the Union has been promoted : and I look on it simply as England reclaiming in a moment of our weakness, that dominion which we extorted from her in a moment of our virtue ; a dominion which she uniformly abused, which invariably oppressed and impoverished us, and from the abolition of which we date all our prosperity." He adds — - ■' " The Union is a measure which goes to degrade the country, by saying it is unworthy to govern itself It is the revival of the odious and absurd title of conquest. It is a renewal of the abominable distinction between mother country and colony, which lost America." " It is the denial of the rights of nature to a great nation, from an intolerance of its prosperity." With this quotation we close our Report, hoping that the language of these eminent lawyers will sink deep into the re- collection of the country. The people of Ireland can, within the compass of this Re- port, behold the means by which the Union was carried ; they can see the inherent defects in that measure ; and if they have the Virtue their forefathers possessed, they will, by obeying the dictates of duty, restore to a great nation the rights of nature ; of which she has been deprived from the basest of all motives — an intolerance of her prosperity. DANIEL O'CONNELL, April 30tli, 1840. Chairman of the Committee. MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CARRIED. 287 We conclude with two extracts from speeches of Lord Grey on the same subject. They Avere made in the Bri- tish parliament in the year 1800 : — " If the parliament of Ireland was left to itself untempted, unawed, unintimidated, it would, without hesitation, have re- jected the resolutions. There are 300 members in all, and 120 of these strenuously opposed the measure, amongst whom were two-thirds of the county members, the representatives of the City of Dublin, and almost all the towns which it is pro- posed shall send members to the imperial parliament; 162 voted in favour of the Union; of those 116 were placemen, some of whom were English generals on the staff, without a foot of ground in Ireland, and completely dependent upon government. . ..... . Let us reflect upon the acts which have been used since last session of the Irish parliament to pack a majority in the House of Commons. All persons holding offices under government, even the most intimate friends of the minister, if they hesitated to vote as directed, were stript of all their employments. Even this step was found ineffectual, and other arts were had re- course to, which, though I cannot name in this place, all will easily conjecture. A bill framed for preserving the purity of parliament was likewise abused, and no less than sixty-three seats were vacated by their holders having received nominal offices." . ......... " Twenty-seven counties have petitioned against the measure (the Union). The petition from the County of Down is signed by upwards of 17>000 respectable independent men, and all the others are in a similar proportion. Dublin petitioned under the great seal of the city, and each of the corporations in it followed the example. Drogheda petitioned against the Union, and almost every other town in the kingdom in like manner testified its disapprobation. Those in favor of the measure, possessing great influence In the country, obtained a few counter-petitions ; yet, though the petition from the county Down was signed by 17,000, the counter-petition was signed only by 415. Though there were 707,000 who had signed petitions against the measure, the total number of those who declared themselves in favor of it did not exceed 3,000, and many even of these only prayed that the measure might be discussed. If the facts I state are true — and I challenge any 288 APPENDIX, NO. V. man to falsify them — could a nation in more direct terms ex- press its disapprobation of a political measure, than Ireland has of a Legislature Union with Great Britain ? In fact, the nation is nearly unanimous, and this great majority is composed, not of fanatics, bigots, or Jacobins, but of the most respectable of every class in the community." APPENDIX, No. VI. "THE TAXATION INJUSTICE.' SECTION L CONTENTS. Repeal Association Petition of 1 842 against Fiscal Injustices of the Union, taken as the text of this article. — Castlereagh on the Prin- ciple of tlie Fiscal Arrangement- — Scotland's '■^Equivalent'''' at her Union Ireland none whatever. — Castlereagh ontlie Union Rates of Contribution. — Irish Lords against them. — Ditto, Mr. Speaker Foster. — Vesey Fitzgerald and Goulburn subsequently confessed them unjust Castlereagli's Pretence? of Fiscal Relief to Ireland hy the Union. — Foster''s Answer. — Fallacy and Inconsistency of these Pretences. The following Petition to the Imperial Parliament, on the subject of* the grievous and unjust Taxation of Ireland since the Union, was unanimously adopted by the Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland, on Monday, the 3lst December, 1842:— Par. 1 . — " That by the Act of" Legislative Union, Ireland was petition of protected from any liability on account of the national debt ^]^^ Kepeai Association of Great Britain previously contracted, and also from the against tiiis raising- of her taxation to the high standard then existing in '"J"'^'^"'^- 290 APPENDIX, NO. vr. Great Britain, until the occurrence of the following contin- gencies : — 2. — " First — that partly by the decrease of the said previous British debt, and partly by the increase of the Irish debt, the two debts should come to bear to each other in the pro- portion of two to fifteen ; i. e. two parts for Ireland to fifteen parts for Great Britain. 3 " Second — that the respective circumstances of the two countries should admit of uniform taxation. 4. — " Your Petitioners complain that the first contingency was most unjustly held by the Imperial Parliament to have been attained in 1816, when the said proportion of the two debts had been arrived at solely by the enormous Increase of the Irish debt, and by no decrease of the British. 5. — " They further complain, that the second contingency was not taken into consideration at all, and, according to the con- fessions of the British ministry themselves, could not have existed ; as the measure of subjecting Ireland to all the liabilities and taxation of Great Britain, was introduced with the strongest declarations of the poverty and approaching insolvency of the former country. G. — " That that measure — namely, the 60) George III. cap. 98, commonly called the Consolidation Act, was introduced under the strange pretext of relieving her from the thereto- fore excessive and exhausting demands upon her ; but that while it nominally did so, it in reality utterly swept away and destroyed all species of protection, which she had hitherto possessed, from a further and monstrous increase of these de- • mands ; and that in consequence of it, she has, upon an aver- age of twenty-six years since the passing of that pretended act of relief, been made to pay more in proportion than she did before ; and in addition, was by it, and still remains, mortgaged in every shilling and every acre for the whole of the enormous debt of Great Britain, as well that contracted since, as that contracted before the Union. 7 " That these injustices have not been compensated for in any way, but have been aggravated by what has been done in the way of relief of taxation since the Union — the relief accorded to Great Britain having been more than eighteen times the relief accorded to Ireland. 8. — " That of the taxes imposed since the Union, the share of Ireland has been so high as one-eighth. 9 — *' That Ireland is, on all hands, confessed to be a most im- THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 291 poverisheJ country — that the absentee rents drain i'rom her between four and five millions of money — that her own manufactures having' nearly all perished, some millions more go awav to purchase British manufactures ; — that further exhausting' drains are occasioned by the sending away of her surplus revenue to England, to be there applied in paying the interest of the British debt — the sums that she pays in British ports on foreign articles, which she has ceased to import direct — and even by, what in her anomalous condition is a loss to her, the consolidation in England of government offices, and the consequent removal from her of public estab- lishments, the expenditure on account of which, was an object in her reduced and impoverished condition. 10. — " The your Petitioners are ready to prove these state- ments at the bar of your honorable House, or before a Com- mittee, if you should please to institute an enquiry into their truth. 1 1 — " That under all these circumstances your Petitioners sub- mit, that Ireland is entitled to an immediate and extensive re* duction of taxation ; and therefore, "Your Petitioners humbly pray, that your honor'*- rable House will take steps to alter the finan- cial arrangements between the two countries, in such a manner as shall relieve Ireland from the unjust and intolerable burthen of taxation to which she is at present subjected, and will grant such further and other relief as to your wisdom shall seem fit. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray, &c., &c." There is one over-sight in the foregoing. There Avere, in effect three contingencies expressed in the Act of Union, on the occurrence of which Ireland was to be made subject to all the liabilities and burthens of Great Britain. The first should rightly have been stated as In the event of liqui- dation of the two debts — a contingency however, that so far at least as England was concerned, was not for a moment considered within the bounds of probability. With this exception, the petition before given embodies the chief features of our case. u 2 292 APPENDIX, NO. VI. At the end of the Appendices, the Act of Union is given at full length ; and the reader can satisfy himself as to the accuracy of the statements of the petition. The clauses referred to are the 2ud and 7th of the seventh article of the Act of Union. The undeniably just grounds for the temporary protec- tion stated in the 1st paragraph of the Petition, to have been given to Ireland at the Union, will be best gathered from the speech of Lord Castlereagh, 5th February, 1800: Lord Caa- In respect to past expenses, Ireland was to have no concern tiereagh's whatever with the debt of Great Britain ; but the two countries exposition . „ . /. / of the tei-ms Were to unite as to luture expenses, on a strict measure oj rela- Vnim. ^*^^ ability. He should have considered it a most valuable cir- cumstance in this arx'angement, if the countries could have been so completely incorporated as not to have had distinct revenues — a part of the system of the Scotch Union, which had been felt to be of such importance, that a great effort was made to equa- lize the circumstances of the two countries for that purpose — England had a large debt — Scotland had none charged upon her revenues — an accurate calculation was made of the sum to be paid to Scotland, to justify her in accepting her share of the debt, and the sum was paid accordingly by England. The tax- ation of the two countries was accordingly fixed at the same scale, except in the article of land tax ; which was fixed at a different ratio, because the land tax iu England was imposed so unequally, that had Scotland paid in the same rate as the nominal land tax of England, she would really have been taxed much higher than her just proportion. He mentioned this to shew the pains taken to incorporate the two countries ; and la- mented that the two circumstances of Great Britain and Ireland did not at present enable the measure of identity to be pursued with equal strictness Such, however, was the dis- proportion of the debts of the two kingdoms, that a common system was then impossible — nor could any system of equivalent, as in the case of Scotland, be applied for equalizing their con- tributions. It was therefore necessary that the debts of the two kingdoms should be kept distinct; and that, of course, their taxation should be separate and proportionate." — Speech of Lord Castlereagh, as printed in pamphlet form hy J. JRea, 57, Exchequer-street, Dublin, 1800. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 293 The disproportion of the two debts was thus stated by hini a little later in the same speech : — " The charges of the debt of Great Britain amount to His staic- £20,000,000 a-year ; and the charges of the debt of Ireland to tiic aci.t £1,300,000, British, a-year." ^^^'^^^""^ This statement, however, included the redeemed debt, and the sinking fund charges. These, although veri- table subsisting burthens, under the silly and perni- cious sinking-fund system of Pitt, would, if here in- cluded, only serve furtlier to complicate the already sufficiently intricate question with Avhich we have to deal ; the more especially as there is little particular notice of them in the public accounts with which we have to deal. The sinking fund of Ireland at the Union, was, accord- ing to the testimony of Lord Castlereagh himself, in a far better condition than that of Great Britain ; and, therefore, we cannot be supposed to be taking any advan- tage in omitting it here. Making then the deductions of the redeemed debt and the sinking-fund, the following, according to a parliamen- tary paper of the 2nd session of 1819 — numbered 35 of session 1819-20 — was the state of the accounts of the two countries as to debt in the year 1800 : — Great Britain, February, 1800. Funded Debt unredeemed. Charge of same. Unfunded Debt. Charge of do. £401,610,161 £15,451,684 £22,909,182 £1,119,888 Total Debt of both kind Total Charge s ... £424,519,343 16,571,272 294 APPENDIX, NO. IV Ireland. Funded Debt unredeemed. Charge. Unfunded Debt. Charge. £21,737,385 £959,698 £1,343,400 £69,573 Total Debt of both kinds. Total Charge, £23,100,785 1,029,271 KemarlvS on the Scotch " equiva- lent." Scotland had no debt at the time of the Union, and the English debt at that time was something more than £20,500,000. For taking on herself a liability to this, Scotland got the sum of £398,085, under the denomina- tion of an " equivalent." This sum was more than si:jc times the amount of her whole customs and excise revenue at the period, viz., the year 1706, and bore the proportion of 1 to 50 to the above stated English debt. According to these proportions, Ireland's equivalent — had such been given her— IbllowR : — -at the Union, should have been something as Her customs and excise revenue, 5th January, 1800, was, (according to Appendix, F 2, of the Report of Lord Monteagle's Committee of 1830, on the state of the Irish poor,) The proportion of 65^ times their amount — being the proportion in the case of the Scotch equivalent. Estimate of And, if the proportion to the English debt be taken — the one for surplus of English debt owr and above Irish, having in lielanil. j^^ amounted to £401,418,558— one-fiftieth part of that amount would be, ... ,.. The mean of these two would have been the least possible sum to offer Ireland, viz. ... £2,100,000 6^ £13,125,000 £8,028,372 £21,153,372 £10,576,686 Ireland, however, did not get even this most inadequate sum.* She was indeed, in a}>pearance, saved exempt from * We are only exemplifying one of the thousand minor and collateral iniuiticcs of the Union and Consolidation Acts, in thic instance. Although THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 295 England's Ante-Umon liabilities ; but, by an arrangement, the tyrannical injustice of which was poorly covered by disgraceful subterfuge and delusion, was irretrievably in- volved in fresh, most unjust, and crushing debt of her own ; and advantage taken of this to declare and enact, within sixteen short years after the Union, that she had no longer ground, so far as great relative inferiority of debt Avas concerned, for any exemption ; and that she was therefore to be deprived of all such exemption. This gross injustice we shall, as we go on, fully lay before the reader. As the diiference of the debts at the Union, deprived Lord Castlereagh of the shadow of a pretext to warrant his subjecting Ireland to all the burthens of England, he had to fix her rate of contribution to the future imperial expenditure, at a much lower amount than that of Great Britain. The arrangement was as follows : — The whole united revenue was to be considered as divided into seventeen parts ; fifteen of which Great Britain was to make up, and two of which Ireland was to make up. In order (said Lord Castlereagh in the speech from which rmther we have before quoted) to find the sum which Ireland should by^castie- contribute to the imperial expenditure, let the relative commer- reagh. cial wealth of both countries, and the relative expenses of both in articles of luxury, be examined ; and if it be found that these two proportions very nearly coincide, it ought to be fairly pro- nounced, that the best means of judging of the relative ability of the countries had been discovered. Taking then the exports and Imports for the last three years, those of Ireland would be found to be £10,925,000; and of Britain, £73,961,000 ; that is, in the proportion of seven to one. these 10^ millions were withheld, with a shadow of reason in 1800, as Ire- land was not immediately iixeA with English debt; yet in 1816, when the injustice of her Union-rate of contribution was, as we shall shew, plainly avowed, she ought have been given the benefit of this sum, by useful ex- penditure on public works — as, roads to markets, piers, &c., &c. 296 APPENDIX NO. VI. The next part of the proportion was to be found in excised articles of consumption ; such as malt, beer, spirits, wine, tea, tobacco. The average of these for the last three years has been: Ireland, £5,954,000; Great Britain, £46,891,000 ; being in the proportion of 7^ to one. These two proportions coming so close, he would take 7^ to one, as the just ratio of the ability of Gi'eat Britain to that of Ireland. Against this estimate of the fiscal ability of Ireland, there was very considerable, but unfortunately, very useless reclamation. It was denounced as most unjust to her; and events have so proved it, beyond the possibility of contradiction. Protests The Journals of the Irish House of Lords (vol. VIII. against the ^ foMreiand's V^S^ ^^^) S^'^^ ^ protcst ou the subjcct, which will be tiwT^''" found along with other miscellanea at the end of this Appendix. The data it supplies are as follows : — Balance of Trade in favour of Great Britain — on her trade with the whole world £14,800,000 Ditto, Ireland on her whole trade, ... ... ... ... 599,312 which give a proportion of 29 to 1. Current Cash in Great Britain, £43,000,950 Ditto, in Ireland, 3,500,000 which give a proportion of 12 to 1. In another protest the following additional item is given : — Permanent Taxes of Great Britain, on the 5th January, 1799, were £26,000,000— for Ireland, ^2,000,000, or as 13 to 1. The scale then was : — Balance of Trade, ... 29 to 1 Current Cash, 12 to 1 Permanent Taxes, ... ... ... 13 to 1 Mean proportion that ought to have fixed the rate, ... ... 18 to 1 The Lords alluded to other points of comparison, or rather to points of considerable disparity, which un- doubtedly ought to have been taken into account — such as THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 297 the influx of wealth into England from East and West India, and Irish absentee remittances ; wliile Ireland was on the contrary drained : — the ease with which very large loans were to be had in Great Britain, while a recent attempt to raise only £1,500,000 in Ireland had failed, &c., &c. It was well remarked by Mr. Speaker Foster and others, that in common decency there should have been a previous committee, or commission of enquiry, before calling on the representative body of Ireland, to pledge and bind their country to engagements of so intricate* and deeply important a nature. Mr. Foster's remarks on the bases adopted by the minister, were as follows : — The noble lord says he estimates the proportion on the joint ^fr- Speaker grounds of commerce and consumption, but omits all Internal the subject. commerce ; which is much greater than the external. And even in the external he omits the tonnage of the shipping be- longing to each kingdom, and rests solely on the value of the imports and exports, without regard to which country receives the profits of the carrying trade, though they constitute a ma- terial part of the value. And in consumption he omits the article of salt, which is one of very general use — the gross duties on it last year were £800,000 in Britain, and £90,000 in Ireland, or nearly nine to one. The stamp duties arising from exchange of property, litigation, and insurance, show in some sort the respective abilities — their gross amount in Great Britain last year was £2,000,000, (exclusive of post-horses, hair-powder licence, &c., not adopted here, or not afiecting pro- perty in its transit,) and in Ireland only £137,000, or as fifteen to one. Yet these he has omitted. The post office also was adopted by many of his friends in England as a criterion for the growing wealth of Scotland ; and I wonder at its escaping his attention. It produced last year in Britain, £874,300, in Ireland £80,000 — about ten for Britain, to one for Ire- land. * He might have said, " so (/es/^wct/ft/ intricate," for such was the fact. 298 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Mr. Foster did not state his calculation on these, having merely thrown them out as matters that ought to have been taken into account by the government. It is, however, sufficiently clear from them, that the British rate, as proposed by Lord Castlereagh, was much too low, and the Irish much too high. But these facts have been admitted in the Imperial Parliament, and there- fore need not be much longer dwelt upon here. Subsequent The latc Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, was, when Chan- confessions f>iT'i-rii • /->i !• n Of this in- cellor 01 the Irish Jiixchequer in 18 lb, the mouth-piece of justiee. . , Lord Castlereagh's government, in proposing the consoli- dation of the exchequers, and in doing so, he thus de- nounced the injustice of the Union rate of contribution imposed upon Ireland, and its grievous effects upon her : — *' I hope it will not be said that Ireland throws a great burden on the empire to save herself. Oh, no ! The necessity of reviewing the act of Union has been caused by the sacrifices she has made, doing her Ijest to keep pace with you. You contracted with her for an expenditure she could not meet. She had been led to hope that her expenditure would be less when united to you than before. She has absolutely paid more in taxes since the Union than seventy-eight millions, being forty-seven more than her revenue in the fifteen years on which her contribution was calculated." Thus the government itself, in 1816, confessed that the rate of contribution for Ireland was too high, and consequently that that for Great Britain was too low. Other statements to the same general effect were made by other members, both English and Irish, and not con- tradicted by any. We need not delay upon them, when we have no less an authority to quote than that of Mr. Goulburn, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1822, when speaking to a motion of Sir J. Newport's, the THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 299 Right Hon. Gentleman said : " The Union contribution of 2-l7ths for Ireland, is noxo alloiced on all hands to have been more than she was able to bear." The injustice of the rate thus established, we shall pre- sently go more into detail as to its effects and consequences to Ireland. Before doing so, the pretences under which it was recommended and advocated, deserve a little examination. Having stated the principle (viz., the proportionate rates of contribution) of article 7, I shall now enumerate its pro- visions. The 1st section provides, that the past debts of the two Deceitful kingdoms shall be borne by them respectively, and if we couple p™""**^**- this liberal provision with the 9th section, which gives Ireland a participation in whatever sums may be produced from the territorial revenues of the British dependencies in India, we must acknowledge not only the justice, but the generosity of the terms. Great Britain holds out a fair participation in all the advantages of the empire, without requiring the smallest participation in the burthens incurred to procure them ; and Ireland will acquire £58,000. in ease of her own burthens, out of the revenues paid by the East India Company. The reader will doubtless be at a loss to discover the great " liberality'' of a provision, that Ireland, owing only 23 millions of debt, should not be called on for fiscal con- tributions equal to those of Great Britain, who was in- debted to the amount of 424 millions. The merest and scantiest justice necessitated such a provision. The "liberality" of the 9th section, is equally unsus- tainable. Mr. Foster thus spoke of it : — This is a curious offer. £58,000 per annum from the East India Company, being our 2-l7ths of £500,000 a year, which that Company covenanted to pay, when her new charter was granted in 1793 — one penny of which I believe she has not yet paid, and a share of which we are in justice entitled to, without regard to Union ; when we confirmed that charter the same year. 300 APPENDIX, NO. VI. But the payment may be postponed to eternity, it' the Lords of the Treasury shall deem it inconvenient to the affairs of the Company to pay it ; for they have a power to suspend it by the act. Let me ask the noble lord why he has omitted to allot us a share of the £12,000,000 to the sinking fund, and of the surplus to the consolidated fund, provided for out of their profits by the same act ? He nods assent ; but will it, or any part of it, come before the time when our proportion of con- tribution is to cease ? It will be inoperative afterwards We shall have to find a new tax, to the amount of £58,000 a-year, to advance it for the East India Com- pany ! Mr. Foster was mistaken in saying that the East India Company had not paid something. They paid (as we see by appendix No. 13, to tlie 4th report on income and expenditure of the United Kingdom, No. 519, of 1828) half their stipulated contribution for each of the years 1793, 1794, 1796, and its full amount in 1797, making a total of £1,250,000, of which Ireland got nothing^ although she was, as Mr. Foster said, most fully and rightly entitled to a portion — she having renewed their charter, as well as England — that is, having enacted restrictions on her own trade in their favour. He was only too correct in his prediction that Ireland Avould have to find a new tax of £58,000 to pay in advance for the promised post-Union contribution from the East India Company to the Irish revenue. In the sixteen years after the Union, up to the year in which the Consolidation Act {^^ Geo. III. c. 98, that which put an end to all proportionate contribution, and thenceforward made debts and taxation common to both countries) came into force, viz., the year 1817, the Company contributed but £98,000, not the amount for two years of the promised payment to Ireland ; nor did Ireland receive a jiortion of this amount, small as it tvas ! The £58,000 contribution was to be a means for her of meeting her contingent to the imperial exchequer — she THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 301 was hindered of those means, by the tender considera- tion of the Lords of the Treasury for the East India Company, and consequently had no other way of pro- viding that amount of her said contingent, than by " a new tax !" Tlie unparalleled audacity of assertion that throughout assertum!!^ marked the advocacy of the Union, in the Irish Parliament at least, was in no instance more conspicuous than in that of the asserted " liberality and generosity' of the sections we are considering. We have seen that the promised " participation in the sums to be received from the East India Company" was, in fact, nothing more than what Ireland had acquired a right to, by her complaisance to that body in 1793. Let us examine was there more of substance in the assurance, that " the smallest participa- tion in the burthens incurred to procure the imperial advantages" was " not required from Ireland." In the first place, if Lord Castlereagh's words were inconsisten- A ' _ ^ <-' cies. meant to convey the impression that she had not, up to that time, borne her part of them, his assertion was incon- sistent with his subsequent endeavour (which we shall presently quote) to prove that Ireland, in consequence of her not being legislatively united with Great Britain, was then paying a million a-year in ivar contributions more than she otherwise would have done. It was also most thoroughly inconsistent with the posi- tions laid down and assented to in the British House of Lords, in the preceding year, by Lord Minto, when, in an attempt to recommend the legislative Union to Ireland, on the ground that her legislative independence was a mockerj', and only served to hinder her from sharing the advantages of England, he thus represented her existing condition : — 302 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Ireland, at present, must take her part in all the wars of Great Britain. She must bear her share of their burthens, and incur all their hazards. Yet she cannot, by the utmost success, acquire an acre of new territory to the Irish dominion. Every acquisition, however great her share in the danger and exertion to get it, accrues to Great Britain. An island taken by Irish regiments, and by ships manned by Irish seamen, is a British conquest, not an Irish. The Irish parliament has never asserted, or conceived, the right of legislating for any of the conquests of the King of England, although he is King of Ireland If we would describe a subordinate and de- pendent country, could we do it better than by saying, it is a country which must contribute her quota to all the wars of a neighbouring kingdom — must incur all the risks of those wars and partake in all their disasters ; while all that is acquired by their success falls, like the noil's share, to that country to which it claims to he co-ordinate and co-equal. I have thus demonstrated the real subordination of Ireland. Pride can fly only to one of two remedies — total and absolute separation, or a perfect, incorporating, and equalizing Union. If addititional proofs were wanting, that Ireland had not shrmik from the imperial bm'thens, they can be collected from the strong expressions of thanks from successive Viceroys to our parliament, during the period of its independence, for its liberal and f/enerous grants towards the exigencies of the state. In the text of the compilation to Avhich the present article is one of the ap- pendices, will be found several instances of what we men- tion ; and a further strong proof in the heavy debt-liabili- ties incurred by Ireland dm-ing tlie last seven or eight years before the Union, in consequence of her assistance to England. The thanks of the representatives of royalty would not have been so frequently and markedly expressed, had Ireland shewn a niggard disposition, in considering the exigencies of the empire. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 303 Lord Minto, in the extract avc have given, went the length of saying, that Ireland, from the necessity of her position, was compelled to bear, and had borne her share of the imperial burthens. What future exemption the promise of Lord Castle- reagh gave Ireland hope for, could not be understood as intended to continue after the period when the debts of the two countries should come to bear to each other the same proportions respectively, as the contributions were then fixed at. In the same speech it was declared, that on the occurrence of such a contingency, the exchequers, debts, &c. of the two countries were to be united ; and thenceforth their contributions to be indiscriminate. It was not however said in the same speech, but it was not the less then intended, and afterwards effected unflinch- ingly and unsparingly, by means of the unjust rate then Imposed upon Ireland, that this contingency was to be made to occur as speedily as possible, and in a manner the most unjust towards Ireland ! We proceed with Lord Castlereagh's proofs of the benefit to Ireland of his pro- posed rate : — Great Britain has at length established the great principle of Jjord Cas- ralslng a great part of her supplies within the year. Ireland Is attempt to not at present In a situation to adopt a similar system. Hence piX'abene- Britaln's debt will hereafter Increase In a much less degree, fit to iie- and be more rapidly liquidated ; while that of Ireland will be increasing with greater rapidity, especially If she continues separate : — The expenses of Great Britain, for 1799, ... £32,700,000 Ireland 5,439,000 Had this been borne In the proportion of 71 to 1, the expenditure by Great Britain would have been, ... ... ... ... £33,695,101 And by Ireland, 4,492,680 304 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Ireland would consequently have saved, in British currency ... ... ... ... £947,314 Irish money, 1,020,181 So long, sir, as the war shall last, and we continue separate from Great Britain, our expenses cannot be reduced, and there- fore we must, in future, expend more by £1,000,000 a-year, than if we were united. As to times of peace, if we consider the advanced pay of the army, the increased charge of the militia, &c., &c., we shall find it impossible to maintain, if only 12,000 men at home, at a less charge than £1,500,000 per annum. And if we increase the establishment to 20,000, the whole charge would amount to £1,900,000 per annum. Now, sir, from the best documents I have been able to procure, it appears that the peace establish- ment of Great Britain is likely to be, ... £7,500,000 And of Ireland, 1,500,000 £9,000,000 If this charge be borne as 7^ to 1, there would be a saving to Ireland of £450,000 British ; or nearly £500,000 Irish cur- rency. Now, sir, let us turn to the situation of the public revenues. The produce of all the taxes last year amounted nearly to £1,850,000; and the present charges of the debt alone, are nearly £1,400,000 Irish curx*ency. I will, however, admit the revenues of this kingdom have, during the present year, expe- rienced an extraordinary increase ; but it is not possible to sup- pose that the whole of this increase can be permanent. Say the revenue produce permanently £2,300,000. Our debt charge is, £1,400,000 Peace establishment, ... ... ... 1,500,000 Total expenses, £2,900,000 So that we shall have, if remaining separate, an annual defi- ciency of £600,000, which we must supply by new burthens on the people ; besides additional taxes of £250,000, so long as the war continue. If, on the contrary, we wisely unite with Great Britain, the future charge of our war expense will be diminished a million a year ; and we shall be able to support our peace expenditure with a very slight addition to the present taxes. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 305 On this statement, Mr. Foster remarked as follows : It is curious to observe the noble lord's arguments last year yw. Foster's and now. Our growing wealth was then held out by him tending to render us too difficult to be governed by our present constitution, and there was the greater hurry for taking away our parliament. Now our poverty is made the pretence — we must take the Union to save us from bankruptcy ! We have not the means to go on. We have over-paid our due proportion of the war expense, by a million a-year ; and of the peace ex- pense by £500,000 ! We have almost ruined the kingdom by this profusion ; and Britain, in proposing the measure, means to give us that million and half-million, and hereafter tax her- self to pay it ! I own we have granted largely — we have not measured our grants by our me&ns so much as by our zeal to uphold Great Britain ; but are we for this to be punished, and our parliament transported, like a felon, for its extravagant efforts to maintain British connexion, by maintaining the cause of Britain ? Did the noble lord sit by during the two last sessions — the most expensive we ever saw, — and not only see, but uo'g-e us, to give the supplies we gave, meaning at a future day to make our liberality, and these cordial effusions of our loyalty, so many arguments for taking away our parliament, and annihilating* our constitution? Is there any child so weak as to believe he is in earnest, or that he means to load England, to save Ireland ? And how is this " million" to be paid us ? — In money? Are our past advances to be repaid ? No ! Taxes to be taken off? — No ! He gives us calculation — nothing but calculation! I will go into his detail, and shew you the imposition. He states the relative ability of the two countries to be as 7^ to 1 ; stating peace expenses as 5| to 1, and war expenses as 9 to 1 ; and making the medium 7^ to 1 (considering the proportions of years of peace and war in this century). This makes 2-l7ths for Ireland to pay to future aggregate expen- diture, and 15-l7ths for England. I take this statement of last year's British expenses as ... ... £32,700,000 But I find no authority for this statement as to Ireland, so I take them for last year, although then unusually great. The report of the com- mittee of accounts makes them ... ... 4,347,000 British money, or £4,709,254 Irish, making together £37,047,000 X 306 APPENDIX, NO. VI. 2-l7ths whereof, being £4,358,470, would have been our share, had his Union been in force, which exceeds by a trifle the sum we did actually pay. British. But he goes further, for he makes our war share £4,492,000 which exceeds what we did pay, viz. ... 4,347,000 So his arrangement, which is to save us a mil- lion, would have cost ... ... ... £145,000 more to us — in Irish money £157,000 more — than we did pay- Again, Britain in six years, up to 1799? increased her debt in the sum of £186,000,000; and Ireland, up to March in that year, increased hei*s £14,000,000, British {nearly). Total £200,000,000; whereof 2-1 7ths would have been £23,530,000 or Irish £25,500,000 But Ireland increased her debts (in Irish money) only 15,092,000 So that, by not having a Union, she has ■ escaped £10,408,000 This would have caused an increased average annual charge of £1,734,666, instead of the promised saving of £1,000,000 per annum Again, Great Britain, during those six years, has imposed permanent taxes of the nett amount of 7^ millions a year, of which 2-l7ths must have been raised by Ireland; making annually £882,352 British, or £955,881 Irish. And this is another way in which the generosity of the Union would have been shewn to us. Further, she has, by temporary taxes on exports, imports, and income, (or by mortgaging them,) the amount of 11^ mil- lions a year, of which Ireland would have had to pay 2-17ths, or £1,352,940, British, making £1,465,685. Thus, had we been united in 1793, we should now owe 10 millions more debt, and pay annually £4,156,239 more than now. Now for his peace establishment. He states it will be £1,500,000, although he confesses that the last was only £1,012,000. He takes the produce of a year's taxes to 25th March, 1799, as £1,860,000, omitting the balances in the collector's hands, which were £257,822 more at the end than at the beginning of the year. This was part of the income of the year, and might have been had if called for. The whole then was £2,118,000. He estimates the permanent increase of the THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 307 revenue in 1 800 as £450,000, forgetting the lotteries, which may be reckoned at a profit of about £70,000 ; making altogether an income of £2,638,000, which leaves for peace establishment, after paying the charges of the debt, viz. £1,400,000, at least £1,238,000, and this after a year of re- bellion ! I have throughout taken his mode of calculation, in order to render comparison more easy, and for the same reason, have admitted his return of the debt at the total capital created, viz. seventeen millions, which the treasury states, in- stead of thirteen millions, which the accountant-general states, and which the committee of supply have voted as the whole due at Lady Day, 1799- And I have carried that principle through with him throughout all the calculations, because he preferred it ; and they are made in British money. As to the rate of contribution, war expenses are much larger than those of peace — at his own calculations nearly as 5^ to 1 — but really 4^ to 1. Where then is the fairness of our paying 2-15ths instead of 2-20ths, when the expenses are £4,700,000 per annum, and making a saving in return where they were only £1,000,000, and are, at the utmost, but £1,500,000, particularly as there are but two years of saving, or peace, calculated, for one of loss, or war. The foregoing refutation, complete as it was, of the ministerial pretences, had, however, as little effect as every- thing else advanced by the friends of Ireland to abate the injustices with which she was then threatened, and which soon after were inexorably inflicted upon her. It must be incontestably evident, that the rates should have been far other than they were. No doubt few matters could be more difl&cult of arrangement than a system of proportionate contributions ; but that circumstance is, in itself, a suflSclent proof of the impracticability of an EQUITABLE legislative Union. Even had an approach been made to equity In the ar- rangement of the rates, it was against the nature of things to suppose, that the country which Avas to get the supreme legislative power, would long tolerate the exemptions of X 2 308 APPENDIX, NO. VI. the other (and defenceless) country — no matter how just those exemptions. No object, worth the trouble and delay, could be gained by following out to a definite result in each case, (with the design of then endeavouring so to blend them, as to be able to deduce from the whole, if possible, some fair terms of proportion,) the various calculations advanced to rectify those of Lord Castlereagh. It is enough to say, generally, that they will be found to suggest proportions of some- where about 17 to 1, instead of those of 7^ to 1, which he dictated and carried. SECTION II. CONTENTS. Design of the Comolidatlon^ and thus the entire Subjection of Ire- land to British Debt — Anxiety of the various Finance Committees between the Union and 1816, to bring about this object — Care to run Ireland into Debt, separate from that of England — State- jnerit, in figures, of the comparative Increase up to 1817, of Bri- tish and Irish Debt — Extraordinary Injustice in dealing ivith the Terms of the Union, that gave Ireland even a nominal Protection — Confessions by the Conmiittee o/' 1815, and by British Ifinisters subsequently, of the excessive Taxation of Ireland — Outrageous Breach of the Union Act, advised by the Committee of 1815, and carried out — No substantial j^retence to account for it — Suggestion of ivhat ought to have been done in 1816, instead of the Consoli- dation of Exchequers. We proceed to examine the working of these latter rates. Examina- Referring to the Act of Union, we find that the dis- tion into the '-' ' and'resuits "t^^ction of Separate rates was to be done away with ; and tierea'\?r ^^^ ^^^^ couutrics United in matters of finance, as strictly rates. ^s in Other matters — upon the occurrence of three, or THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 309 more properly speaking, two contingencies ; the second being of a double nature. The first was, in case the debts of the two countries should both be liquidated. The second was, in case they should come to bear to each other the same j^roportions that the arranged contri- butions of the two countries Avere to bear to each other, viz., as 2 to 15 ; and also, in case the respective circum- stances of the two countries should appear to admit thenceforth of their contributing indiscriminately, by equal taxes on the same articles in each, to the future expendi- ture of the United Kingdom. It cannot be necessary to dwell upon the first contin- gency, which the enormous amount of the debt of Great Britain rendered so very remotely, if at all, probable. The second contingency will require a separate considera- tion of each of its tAvo branches. The first branch, viz. that the debts of the two coun- tries should come to bear to each other the proportion of fifteen parts for Great Britain to two parts for Ireland, was thus treated of by Lord Castlereagh : — Before this can take place, the taxes of Great Britain must ^71^'^""='=.* be reduced by the amourjt of ten millions a-year prepense'' It may happen, however, that if war should continue, and Ire- S"^' ^'^' land fund her supplies, while England raises a great part of hers within the year, and mortgages her Income tax to their rapid reduction in time of peace, that the proportion of the debt of Ireland may rise. Two other versions of his speech (one printed by Stockdale, 62, Abbey-street, and the other by Milliken, Grafton-street) give this part of it rather differently, making him appear to contemplate the decrease of Bri- tish debt, as the sole means by Avhich the required pro- portion of the two debts was to be brought about. The 310 APPENDIX, NO. VI. version, however, (printed by Eea, 57, Exchequer-street,) from Avhich we extract, appears much the fullest, and in its statistics generally the most accurate of the three. It is a curious commentary upon the alleged " fairness" of the Union-terms, that the version of his speech which we have used, is certainly the most correct as to his state- ment regarding the contingency in qviestion. Nothing would appear fairer than that the required proportion should have been brought about solely by the decrease of English debt, and nothing could be more justifiable than Mr. Foster's indignant remark upon the actual arrangement : "The monstrous absurdity," said he, (on the 15th March, 1800,) "that you Avould force down our throats is, that Ireland's increase of poverty, (as shewn by increase of debt,) and England's increase of wealth, (as shewn by diminution of debt,) are to bring them to an equality of condition, so as to be able to bear an equality of taxes. This is contrary to all reason." He said perfectly true, but the arrangement was forced upon Ireland, in that shape, nevertheless. This was bad enough, " but worse remained behind !" The required proportion was hrouglit about solely by the INCREASE of the Irish Debt — no decrease whatsoever oc- curring in the British ! "Malice Between the Union and the consolidation, various com- prepense ot ' cofmiMtteTs Diittccs of thc imperial parliament sat upon the subject of parulm^ent*^ the financial relations between the two countries. It is impossible to peruse the records of their proceedings with- out being struck by the evidences of one design, one intent, pervading them all, viz. — the design and the intent of hastening on the consolidation, without much regard to that part of the contingency that was expected to be in favour of Ireland. " Rem, rem, quocumque modo, rem!" seems to have been their motto. This animus THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. -311 is distinctly visible in the proceedings of the committees of 1811, 12, and 13, preparatory, as it Avere, to its full, and entire, and final developement in the report of the com- mittee of 1815. The committee of the year 1811, actively assisted the Increase of Irish debt, by recommending that " the pay- ments since the Union, made to corporate bodies, or indi- viduals, in Ireland, in respect of any city or borough •wliich may have ceased to send members to parliament in consequence of the Union, should not be considered as a joint charge ;" thereby throwing upon Ireland, directly and openly, the last remaining item of the extravagant pur- chase-money of her parliament ; the other enormous item, viz. — the million and nearly a half expended in personal bribery, as Avell as the millions wasted in military expenses, having been quietly saddled upon her before. This last charge thus openly put down to her account, and unjustly too, — (for surely the rest of the empire ought to have borne some share of cost of a measure which Avas as- serted to be an advantage to the Avhole,) — amounted to nearly £1,300,000. The other committees chiefly busied themselves with Avoidance calculations as to the proportions the debts of the two the reai countries bore to each other, and a good deal of argument that of the 1 • 1 • 11 «-> injustice IS Avasted in then- reports upon Avhat they affected to con- the rate sider a great constitutional question — namely, Avhether the terms of the Union Act Avould alloAv of the consolidation being effected, if the actual moment o^ projection — the very instant Avhen the debts came to bear to eacli other the required proportion of fifteen to tAvo — Avere not seized upon for the purpose. They affected great anxiety lest a question should be raised upon the practicability, legally speaking, of effecting the consolidation after the proportion had been obtained, 312 APPENDIX, NO. VI. should tliat proportion chance to be more than obtained, viz. — should the Irish debt come to bear a higher propor- tion to the British than two to fifteen. This earnestness Avas put on and assumed, to blind the public mind to their total neglect of examining into the real causes of the monstrous increase of Irish debt, and their total omission of considering the second branch of the contingency, without the existence of which the consoli- dation could not be legal, according to the Act of Union. We allude to the provision — " And if it shall appear, that the resjiective circumstances of the tivo countries ivill thenceforth admit of their contributing indiscriminately to the general expenditure," &c. &c This was not taken into consideration at all, until the meeting of the committee of 1815 ; and yet it is as important a proviso as any one contained in the Act of Union, and is, to use a legal phrase, a " condition cumulative" that is, a condition additional upon the first condition, that the debts should be to each as fifteen to two. The committee of 1815 did, indeed, allude to this second condition ; but, as it would seem, only to outrage it. They pursued the same mock perquisition into the self-suggested quibble of the other committees ; and while they thus assumed, Avith regard to one point (at best quite beside the real question), such nicety of discrimination, they slurred over a consideration of the most vital im- portance, — that which was contained in the second con- dition of which we speak. AVe shall presently have to refer more specially to the conduct of the committee of 1815. And of the Meantime this is the place to remark, that the flagitious ihe"union mcaus by which the required proportions of the two debts were brought about, had been plainly provided by the Act of Union. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 313 In the first place there was, as we have seen, a most dis- proportionately grievous rate of contribution imposed upon Ireland. But this could never, unassisted, have swelled the debt of Ireland ; on the contrary, it should, itself, have had to be repealed, when Ireland's inability to meet it became ap- parent — Avhich was the case immediately after the Union. The rate should, itself, have been repealed, because all future loans being to be borne according to the proportions of fifteen to two, any increase to the debt of Ireland, by reason of loans to supply the deficiency of the product of her taxation, Avould have necessitated a proportionate in- crease to the debt of Great Britain. The latter country, therefore, would have been made to feel practically, and year after year in an increasing ratio of severity, the griev- ousness of the rate that had been put upon the former. To prevent this, and to make sure that the debt '^f Ire- rrovision 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 p 11 • r- 11 11 • for running land should rise, the lollowing artiully worded proviso was Ireland into . . . separate introduced into the 6th section of the "financial" article E>ebt. (the 7th) of the Act of Union. "Provided, that if at any time, in raising the contributions hereby fixed for each country, pai"liament shall judge it fit to raise a greater proportion of such respective con- tributions in one country within the year than in the other, or to set apai't a greater proportion of sinking fund for the liquidation of the whole, or any part of the loan raised on ac- count of the other country ; then such part of the said loan for the liquidation of which different provisions shall have been made for the respective countries, shall be kept distinct, and shall be borne by each respectively." The means thus given were most unsparingly used. The annual finance accounts give the progressive details — it is at present sufiicient for us to state the general result. For this purpose we will give here the respective amounts 314 APPENDIX, NO. VI. ?on"c°quen- ^^ ^lie (lebts of Gacli country in 1801,* and on the 5th of knd.°^^' January, 1817, together with the annual charge, — pre- mising that the amounts in each case include unfunded as well as funded debt, and the statements of annual charge include the charore on both kinds. An increase of both tlebts, but chiefly of /rish. GREAT BRITAIN. IRELAND. ] Debt- An. Charge. Debt. An. Charge. 5th Jan. 1801. £ 450,504,984 £ 17,718,851 £ 28,545,134 £ 1,244,463 5th Jan. 1817. 734,522,104 28,238,416 112,704,773 4,104,514 Par. Paper, 35 of 1819, C2nd Session J The reader will remark, that there was no decrease at all of either debt, but an increase of both. It would have been very bad for Ireland even had her debt increased only in proportion with that of Great Britain. Still that proportionate increase would at least have saved her from being loaded (as she was by the consolidation of the ex- chequers) with all England's liabilities ; for, of course, the disparity between the two debts Avould have remained as great as ever; and therefore there would have been no excuse for consolidation. But how cruel and monstrous the injustice, that not only was her debt increased, but while the British debt did not double, hers was increased four-fold. It is no straining of an argument, but an inevitable con- clusion from the premises laid down by the quotations we * Some pages further on, a note will be found in which we deny that the amounts for 1801 fairly represented the respective debts. We take them here, however, as the unjust means which the Union Act provided for in- flaming the liability of Ireland, began their operation in 1801. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 315 have given from Lord Fitzgerald and Mr. Goulburn, that as the means by which this excessive increase of Irish debt was created were unjust, that excess itself is unjust, and should by no means be considered as part of the rightful liabilities of Ireland. No such consideration however was allowed to weigh in her favour, but the I'act was taken abstractedly, that her debt had increased so as to be within the ratio of the con- tributions ! It Avould be Avell for the reader to pause here ; and re- flect Avhether this Avas not the plainest violation of justice. The intricacy of our subject will be lessened by such pauses : and the extraordinary facts of the case be all the stronger impressed upon the mind. To proceed with our task. We have already recorded the declaration made, and not controverted, in the British parliament, as to tlie great efforts of Ireland to do her part, after the Union, by taxa- tion. It was on the failure of these efforts that the ruinous system of loans was resorted to. The finance committee of 1815, thus bore testimony to the efforts of Ireland : " Your committee cannot but remark, that for several years Testimony Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than nance ^com- Great Britain herself, notwithstanding' the immense exertions mittee of of the latter country, and including- the extraordinary and war heavy bur- taxes. The permanent revenue of Great Britain Increased from *^^JJ^ otire- 1801, when the amounts of both countries were first made to correspond, in the proportion of 16^ to 10. The whole revenue of Britain (including war taxes), as 21^ to 10, and the revenues of Ireland as 23 to 10." Mr. Leslie Foster, the late Baron Foster, of the Irish bench, a member connected with government, followed Mr. Fitzgerald (whom we have before quoted), and imi- tated him in ascribing the bankrupt condition of Ireland 316 APPENDIX, NO. VI. to the oppressiveness of her rate of contribution. He thus described her increase of taxation, in her vain efforts to meet that rate : " The taxation of Ireland at the Union Hamlnur; was £2,440,000 ; in 1810 it had risen to £4,280,000 ; in testimonies. , ^i n • • n r- nnn r\r\r\ t/> • • 7 18 lo it was £5,7d0,000. Injact, taxation in that country had been carried almost to its ne plus idtra. To these testimonies we shall add but one more — that of the late Lord Sydenham, when moving, on the 26th of March, 1830, for a committee for a revision of taxation : — " A case is established in the instance of Ireland, which is written in characters too legible not to serve as a guide to future financiers, — one which ought to bring shame on the memory of its authors. The revenue of Ireland in 1807 was £4,378,000. Between that year and the conclusion of the war, taxes were successively Imposed, which, according to the cal- culations of Chancellors of the Exchequer, were to produce £3,400,000, or to augment the revenue to £7,700,000. The result was that in 1821, when that sum — less about £400,000 for taxes repealed — ought to have been paid Into the exchequer, the whole revenue of Ireland amounted to only £3,844,000, being £533,000 less than In 1807, previous to one farthing of these additional taxes having been Imposed. Here is an example to prove that an Increase of taxation does not tend to produce a corresponding Increase of revenue, but, on the contrary, an actual diminution." — Hansard's Debates. riainbrcach The fii'st brauch of the second continojency under which of the provi- _ , . sionsof the « consolidatiou" was to take place, having been thus most Act of Union _ ^ _ -■• ° in the case i^n justly attained, it remains to be seen what was done ot the second J J ' contingency ^s regarded the second branch. This was in terms : — " And if it shall appear that the respective circumstances of the two countries will thence- forth admit of their contributing indiscriminately by equal taxes," &c., &c. This was not a condition alternative, but, in legal terms, a condition cumulative — that is to say, a condition addi- THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 317 tional upon the preceding — and required with equal im- perativeness. No possible ingenuity can maintain the position — nor has it ever been attempted — that this condi- tion was not absolutely necessary, according to the plain wording of the act, and that without it the occurrence of the first — namely, the coming of the tAvo debts into the required proportions — did not fulfil the legal requisites for the contingency that was to justify the measure of conso- lidating the exchequers of the two countries, and rendering both subject to the same liabilities. It is scarcely credible to say — Avhat however is the fact — that this condition was disregarded — or, what made the fact worse, was considered only to be outraged ! The committee of 1815 thus dealt with the matter (p-p- 12, 13, Report of 1815, sess. number 214) : — " It remained then for your committee to consider, whether The breach , . . " „ , . , , suggested or not the respective circumstances or the two countries would by the Com- henceforth admit of their contributing indiscriminately, by ^^^^^^ "^ equal taxes, &c. &c. " It is well known that parliament has not hitherto deemed it expedient to extend to Ireland the most productive of the taxes imposed in Great Britain, for raising-, by direct taxation, the supplies within the year. In other respects your com- mittee have found the taxes of Ireland not fully equalized with those of Great Britain, particularly in the excise, where some important branches are protected from increase until 1820, by the act of Union, and in the stamps. " But on the other great heads of revenue — customs and assessed taxes — they have found a very near approximation between the rates of both countries." \_Here follows the remark we have before quoted from the same committee, on the excessive increase of the permanent taxation of Ireland.^ " Under these circumstances it is manifest that no practical benefit can possibly be obtained, for any part of the united kingdom, by endeavouring to maintain a fixed proportion of expenditure, tvhen that proportion has rapidly carried the debt of Ireland from a state of great relative inferiority into 318 APPENDIX, NO. VI. a groiving excess, which cannot be met by any system of taxation that would not violate the most solenm engagements. " Moreover, it appears to your committee, that from the whole tenor of the act of Union, and the very circumstance of the temporary guards to prevent the too sudden imposition of hurdens on the weaker country, before time had beeti allowed for the acquisition of at least equivalent benefits, that a Union, strict and perfect in matters of finance, to the extent of consolidating the treasuries and the exchequers, must have been contemplated by the two treasuries. " On the whole, then, with a view to the clear advantages of all parts of the empire — to relieving Ireland from a burden ivhich experience has proved too great — and at the same time with the hope of rendering her resources more product- ive, your committee have resolved, \_Here follows their resolution, to the effect that the time was come for the consolidation of the exchequer."] Without wasting time in general reflections on the evi- dent " malice prepense" of the foregoing, let us come to its practical examination. What ought Id the first place we have additional and conclusive tes- th^remedy" timouj as to thc gricvousncss of the Union-rate of contri- for the con- i ■ • • i t l J fcssed evil. DutioH imposcd upon Ireland. What would be the natural remedy for this — taking into consideration the admitted exhaustion of Ireland? Should it not have been to revise the rate — to alter it, to lower it, and thereby suit it better to the ability of Ireland — relieving her at the same time from the excess of debt into which its injustice had plunged her? It was true, that the 2nd section of the 7th article of Union, provided that a revision of the rates was not to take place for 20 years; but even if justice did not require (upon other grounds, however, than the committee adopted) the period of revision to be anticipated, the committee themselves recommended what was, in effect, a breach of the provision in question. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 319 In the second place, where were the proofs of this " ability" of Ireland ? How was she shewn to have so improved, as that her " circumstances" should be considered to " admit of her contributing indiscriminately, by equal taxes" with England ? Of this, not only did they not attempt any proof, but, as the reader will have seen, they established the direct contrary, by declaring that Ireland's then existing burdens — much inferior as they were to England — had been " proved by experience to be too great." An objection, not very tenable at best, and most easy to PossiWe oh- be refuted, may be taken here to our argument. It may tii? t'ore- ' •/ o •/ going. be said, that in the extract we have given from the report of 1815, there is a clear allusion to the absence in Ireland, of taxes the most likely to be productive ; and that the in- tent of the promoters of the consolidation was, by that measure, to annul, legally, the restrictions which the Union Act placed upon the imposition or increase in Ireland of rates upon some "important branches of taxation;" and when that was effected, that their further intention was, to compensate her by the repeal of certain more oppressive and less productive taxes at that time in force — thus bringing into play the clause which provided that, even after con- solidation, there might be particular exemptions allowed in that country. To ascertain if this were done, or if the Refutation. materials existed for doing it, it requires only to examine the general state of the imposts of Ireland then and after- wards. Taxes upon the following productive articles were the same in both countries, viz. tea^ sugar, tobacco, wine, coffee, cotton-yarn, and wool, raw and organzine silk, for- eign bar-iron, timber, besides a multitude of others. While the committee were sitting, the Irish malt duties were assi- milated to the British. The items we have given in italics are enumerated (with the addition of those of " spirits and 320 APPENDIX, NO. VI. beer") In the 2ncl section of the 7th article of Union, as Unproduc- tiveness of Stamp Re- venue. furnishing, in their respective quotas of production, m Great Britain and Ireland, proper elements of a comparison on which any future revision of the rates of contribution was to be founded. The other articles we mention amply supply the place of " beer" and of " spirits," and enable us to take the list as (according to no less an authority than the act of Union itself) most sufficient basis for an estimate of "ability;" and so being, the duties upon them must necessarily be among the most important of the imperial imposts. If then these duties were to be lightened off Ireland by the consolidation, some of the most productive of her taxes would have to be given up. The four articles alone, of wine, sugar, tea, and tobacco, produced £2,000,000, in the year 1814, in Ireland — being not very far from half her whole produce of taxation in that year. The committee confessed that not only customs' duties, but assessed taxes, were as nearly similar as might be. In so far therefore as they were productive branches of the revenue, no change could be made, to increase their pro- duce in Ireland : her taxes being of course restricted to an equality with those of England. Stamps, and some branches of the excise, offered the only hope ; and they are accordingly pointed at in the Report. Stamps, however, never gave much revenue in Ireland. That they were not much looked to, is clear from the fact that it was only in 1842, that they were equalized with the English. A trifling increase indeed was made upon them in the course of the year 1815, but the committee of that year, alluding to it as a then pending measure, treated it as little affecting the comparison between the taxes of the two countries. Other additions also of small produce were made in 1821 and 1823, and attempted in 1828: THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. .which latter attempt had to be given up, owing to the re- presentations made to government of the ruin that woukl be caused by tlieir infliction. And the result of the " as- similation" has realized the prediction of Mr. Alderman Staunton, (whose labours have been so eminently useful on these, and as on other subjects connected with Ireland's case,) when at the time the additions of 1842 were pro- posed, he foretold that they would raise the Irish stamp revenue little, if at all, beyond that of Scotland ; notwith- standing the disparity of popidation. The foUowinir are from the Finance accounts : — 321 Revenue of Stamps. Year ended 3th January, 1842.* Year ended 3th January, 1846. England, Scotland, Ireland, £6,480,000 370,000 470,000 £6,912,138 386,314 398,339 And this, when the additions in question were estimated to produce £630,000 ! More than enough has, we trust, been put forward to shew that the stamp duties offered no chance for the " bet- ter arrangement," against the possibility of Avhich we are just now contending. Under the head of excise duties, the exemptions of Ire- Excise ' , ^ Duties. land were, " beer, bricks and tiles, candles, cider and perry, glass, (exclusive of bottles,) hops, printed calicoes, salt, soap, starch, stone bottles, — on which articles she had no internal duty — and auctions, glass bottles, hides and skins, licences, paper, spirits, and vinegar, on which her duties were not equal to the British. The excise duty on beer was made to operate against our Irish porter imported into England, and the duty on * Viz the year 1841, that immediately preceding the new Irish ?tamp 'duties. • "-"'^'i l,*; . 322 APPENDIX, NO. VI* home spirits told most heavily against Irish whiskey simi- larly imported. Had England and Scotland been exempt from those duties, it would have been an immense advan- tage to the Irish brewer and distiller ; and consequently their continuance was a great injury to those parties. We got our hops from England, and the English grower had the duty remitted to him, by drawback on exportation to Ireland : — so that to have put duties on hops in Ireland would not have lightened the English burthens, while the hop groAvers of that country would have suffered from our diminished consumption. The same as to soap, with the exception of two circumstances unfavourable to Ireland, viz : 1st — that not only had the English maker the benefit of the drawback of duty, but that he absolutely got a premium, inasmuch as in origi- nally paying the duty he was remitted one-tenth of it for waste ; while the drawback given him on exportation was of the full and unabated amount of the duty. 2nd — that he thereby was able to undersell the Irish manufac- turer in his own market. In bricks, glass, and paper, as well as in several minor branches of excise, either the same system of drawback had been allowed upon the quantities exported (quantities which, in most cases, comprised the whole of the Irish consumption of those articles) ; or where no drawback existed, the result did not essentially differ, as the English exporter, lacking the reimbursement of the drawback, included the duty in his price to the Irish con- sumer, who, therefore, was and is the person who really paid and pays the duty upon the articles in question. Nay, it is certain that on some articles imported from England, we have to pay the whole or part of the excise duty ori- ginally imposed there, notwithstanding that such duty has been draicn back by the exporter. This is the case, for in- stance, as regards red bricks, on which the practice of the THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 323 Englishman is, to charge us the duty in tlie price; and with regard to fire-bricks, he does so to the amount of half the duty, although in both cases he has drawn back the entire amount from the government on exportation ! Since the consolidation, the following was the progress of excise assimilation. Paper duties assimilated in 1825 — hides and skins at the same time — vinegar duties in 1826— glass duties in 1828 — and some minor points since, as auction duties, &c., &c. We have perhaps wasted too much time in refuting so shalloAv an objection, as that we have just now answered. It might have been enough to refer generally and with con- fidence to the existing state of things, to prove that no such kindness as it suggests, was intended by the consolidation. But it is not without use to do away with all the specious pretexts advanced to justify the conduct of those who ori- ginated that most unjust measure. Coming back from this digression, we resume the ex- amination of the 1815 Committee's Report. As we have before said, there is not the slightest attempt Resumption made to shew any increased ability of Ireland since the am'nationof Union ; although the wording of the act can in no other tee'?R?^rt" way be construed, save to mean that such increase was a " ^" necessary incident, before consolidation of the exchequers. The paragraph which speaks of the ultimate design of the framers of the Union, to carry out that Union in matters o? finance, as well as in others, was but a mere cloud of words, declaring that of which no one entertained doubt, and seemingly intended to divert attention from the grave omissions in other parts. Were it any thing else stress would have been laid upon the " acquisition of equi- valent benefits," of which it speaks. There is no attempt to assert that Ireland received such benefits; but the man- ner in which they are mentioned leads to the inference, that Y 2 324 APPEN'DIX NO. VI. what could not with any decency be openly advanced, was sought to be indirectly suggested, with some hope of causing a deceitful belief in the possibility of their ex- istence. The succeeding and last paragraph of our quotation ex- ceeds all that went before it, in audacity of assertion. It states that the consolidation Avould be " a clear ad- ^^isepre- vantage to all parts of the empire;" without giving any grounds for the opinion, in the case of Ireland at any rate. It talks of relieving Ireland from a burthen Avhich "ex- perience had proved too great," and concludes by recom- mending a measure which jjut an end to that previous protection she had enjoyed from greater burthens ! It speaks of " rendering her sources more productive ;" ])ut Ave have seen that the means of so doing could not exist under the proposed arrangement, so far as change wdthout lessening the gross amount of taxation Avas concerned ; and BS to the repeal of taxation, we shall have, at a future stage, to shew how disproportionate this has been, as com- pared with the relief accorded to Great Britain; and may content ourselves for the present with remarking, that within a year from the time of the committee's report, no less than seventeen millions were struck off from the taxa- tion of Great Britain ; whereas ten years elapsed ere the relief to Ireland exceeded half a million ! The orio;inators of the consolidation act took no account of the defenceless state in which they were about to place the country they pretended to relieve. Even were she really relieved by that measure, where was her guarantee for the duration of the relief' ? Whensoever the British parliament chose, they Avere thenceforth to have it in their poAver to re-impose old, or invent ncAv burthens for Ire- land, all limitation to her liabilities being done aAvay with. Even the distant hope given her ])y the fifth section of THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 'S2o the seventh article of the Union, that in the event of her resources becoming abundantly productive, her taxes migiit be lightened by the amount of surplus revenue thereby created, or that amount might be applied to local improve- ments, was now to be vitterly destroyed, as she could never more have surplus revenue, until the whole of the enor- mous and monstrous debt of Great Britain should be liqui- dated ; that debt, amongst other things, being " rendered common" by the consolidation act. The reader is now referred back to the petition Avith litivnnce to , . , petition Ijc- which this article commences ; and if he have followed our toie givin, to shew its arguments, he will see that we have established the pro- statements . . . . , proved. positions contained in the five first paragraphs of that petition. Their necessary consequence is, that the consolidation jict was a breach of the articles of Union. What was done being thus unconstitutional, as well as )^''"'' "l"^'^'' c5 ' to liave l)een unjust, it remains to be seen what ought to have been done ^gj"," '" in 1816. Our answer is, the unanimously condemned rates of contribution ought to have been altered ; and Ireland should not only have her rate lowered, but she ought to have been relieved from the unjust excess of increase of her debt. There was a difficulty indeed in the way of revision ; inasmuch as the Act of Union ordained that twenty years should pass without revision, or any alteration, unless the contingencies under which consolidation was to be effected, should occur in the interval. But when a greater diffi- culty, viz., that of carrying the consolidation against the spirit and meaning of the Act of Union, was so little thought of, a less degree of boldness would have sufficed to get over that which Ave haAC mentioned. It Avas a plain and, only too probably, a Avilful defect in the Union ar- 326 APPENDIX, NO. VI. rangements, that an earlier period for revision had not been provided. However, if this difficulty were insurmountable, very little additional mischief to the empire would have resulted from letting matters go on as they were, until the regularly fixed period of revision had arrived, viz., the year 1820. The war with France was over, and the general expenditure had, even in the year 1815, diminished. The general expenditure for 1814 was j£ 132,748,000. In 1815, it fell to £122,604,000, being a diminution of £10,144,000. In 1816 it again fell and was only £94,798,000, being £27,806,000 less than the preceding year ; and in 1817 there Avas a further decrease of £26,000,000, the expenditm'e that year being only £68,710,000. After that year up to 1820, the expen- diture remained about the same amovmt. From 1814, therefore, there was an aggregate decrease of £64,000,000 ; and from the period when the consolidation of the ex-* chequers was debated, namely, just after the finance amounts for the year ending 5th January, 1816, had been presented, there Avas a nett decrease of £53,000,000, This would, of course, have lessened the amount of exac- tions from Ireland, although they still would have been most oppressive. But the fact is, a revision ought to have been specially enacted, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 327 SECTION III. CONTENTS. Consequences of the Consolidation Act considered- — Its asserted pur- poses — How hoime out ? — Tioo professed boons to Ireland, viz.. Relief from unjust rate of Contribution, and from the pres- sure of her accumulated Debt; but instead of real relief from either, she has been subjected to a liability of indiscriminate Con- tribution ; operating whenever her Revenues admit of it; and being lightened oulf/ ivhen there is an impossibility of paying : and this liability is permanent upon her, until the ichole of the enormous Debt of Great Britain shall he paid off — Proofs of this. We now come to the consequences of the consolidation. E^diconse- It Avas professed to be a measure of relief to Ireland, then Ireland of e-roanino; under grievous burthens. Let us see how far the (Jation Act tacts nave borne out the profession. By the provisions of this act, not only were the exche- quers consolidated, but all arrangements as to proportionate contributions were done away with ; and both countries were in future to contribute simply as much as they could, by equal taxes, so far as that equality was possible. Ireland therefore was nominally to be relieved of the rate which had been confessed oppressive. A further benefit to her was to be the taking from off her shoulders of the whole amount of increase of her debt between 1800 and 1817, viz., an increase represented by £2,860,050, increase of debt-charge. This was to be consolidated Avith the debt of Great Britain : a matter rendered the easier, as all the borrowino-s of Ireland since the Union had been in Enir- 328 APPENDIX, NO. VI. land. These two provisions comprised the benefits that Ireland was considered to receive from the consolidation of the exchequers ; and were and have been loudly vaunted at the time, and subsequently down to the moment at which we are writing. If, however, we can show that, although relieved from the pressure of an unjust increase of her original debt, she has been made responsiljle for, and to the utmost of her ability compelled to contribute to, the greatly superior original British debt ; and if we further shew, that under a strict interpretation of this boasted relief of Ireland by the assumption of her post- Union debt by Great Britain, the latter will yet be found to have in fact indemnified herself by exacting from Ireland two-fourteenths of the general expenditure, instead of the condemned two-seven- teenths ; and again, that even supposing that post-Union debt was not at all taken off the shoulders of Ireland, but shared between the two countries according to the Union proportions, that under even such an arrangement, the payments exacted from Ireland to the general expenditure will be found to have been, on an average, equal to the said condemned proportion of two-seventeenths, — then, in the case of establishing those facts, we shall leave little pretence of benefit to Ireland from the measure of the consolidation of the exchequers. All that then can remain for the advocates of the latter measure, will be to shew, if they can, that the unfairness of those proceedings has been compensated for to Ireland by remission of taxation greater than Avhat was conceded to Great Britain. On this, too, we shall endeavour to meet, and trust utterly to rout them. made"?o'* To scc if fact and reason justify us in our first position, bil^then'of ^'^2- — that Ireland is made responsible for the British debt tukm^uebt' — that is, the British original, as we have called it, or ante- THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 320 Union debt — let the reader peruse the following state- ment : — Annual charge of the British debt contracted ) t^^^7 ^7^ a ae-, ^^^- Paper before the Union, ... ... J Ditto, of the Irish debt, similarly con- | . „ . . .^„ tracted, ... ... ... / ' ' Excess of British liability, ... ... £16,474,388 Now what is the amount of the exclusive taxation of Great Britain? — Its items are: 1st, the income tax; 2nd, the land and assessed taxes ; and 3rd, a portion of the ex- cise duties. The income tax stands at an average of about £5,300,000. Of this, although nominally an exclusive British tax, a portion (the amount of which we have been refused the means of ascertaining) is being wrung from Ireland. We do not speak of payments by absentees, as this latter contingent will better come under consideration in another form. But officers on half-pay, widows receiving government pensions, clerks in certain public offices, &c., in Ireland, have been subjected to it. There are at pre- sent no data for calculating how much has been squeezed out of the scanty means of these parties. But the amount cannot at any rate be less than what w^ould balance any small remaining inequality between the Irish and British stamp duties — and so we are saved going into the minute details which these opposing credits would require. Land and assessed taxes average £4,450,000. Some small items of excise are untaxed in Ireland, and on home - spirits the English duty is double that in Ireland. •The above amounts are as they stood on the 5th of January, 1801. The parliamentary paper, we again remark for sake of easy reference, is of the 2nd Session of 1819. 330 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Ireland's exemption, however, is greater in appearance than in reality ; as she imports certain quantities of excised articles from Great Britain ; and on several of them is charged by the exporter at least a portion of the duty, although on exportation he received back from the govern- ment the entire of the duty originally paid by him. There- fore the nett amounts for Great Britain, and not the gross receipts, are to be taken into account. These can be at once stated for the greater part of the articles, as all that is required is, to take them from the details of excise in the finance accounts. There is more difficulty about home- spirits — from the circumstances of some duty being upon them in Ireland — although less in amount than the British. On this article the British payments are £4,500,000 ; and the Irish £1,150,000, leaving, of course, a great excess of British receipt. But this excess is not entirely the produce of a greater pressure of taxation. Both the greater population and wealth of Great Britain ought, generally speaking, to be taken into account, in comparisons betAveen her and Ireland. Spirits, however, being an article, the consumption of Avhich is little affected by a greater or lesser degree of wealth, a comparison be- tween the two countries in this respect will embrace only the proportion of their respective populations. So much then of the excess of British payments as may be fairly referable to her greater amount of population, must first be deducted from her stated amount paid, before the latter is brought into contrast with the payments of Ireland. The proportion of population for Great Britain, as com- pared with Ireland, is about three to one. But the blessed Sjiread of teetotalism in the latter country, operates upon the comparative consumption of spirits as if the population of Great Britain were in much greater proportion. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 331 Taking, however, the payments of Great Britain on an equal amount of the spirit duties, no higher than in the mere numeral proportion above stated, viz., as three to one, they must give about £3,450,000 ; and therefore her exclusive payments, under this head, cannot exceed one million. Having now got all the figures for our calculation we proceed to set them out in due order. Income tax, ... Land and assessed taxes, Bricks, Post-Lorse duty and licences, Soap, Spirits, £5,300,000 4,450,000 560,000 172,000 900,000 1,000,000 Kxclusive payments hy Great Bntain. Total average exclusive payments £12,442,000 But we have seen that her exclusive liabilities, amount annually to no less a sum than ... ... £16,474,000 'SnhiYdiCt exclusive payments, ... 12,442,000 Remain, ... ... ... 4,032,000 from the exclusive burthen of which she unfairly exonerates herself. Should errors be in this calculation, they will not be found against England. Her payments are considerably over rather than MW(7y Britain pay? '' ,, , T.r -i-». i our opponents. They know Avell that Mr. Kice, the pre- sent Lord Monteagle, to whom we allude, is not one who would understate the case against the Repealers, and that his official connexion with the treasury, at the time tlie THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 337 Repeal question first began to excite attention in parlia- ment, gave him considerable advantage in making out his statements. In the year 1834, he caused to be presented to the house several papers having relation to this subject, pre- paratory to the discussion on the Repeal of the Union, whicli took place in that year, A considerable deal of suspicion exists as to the accuracy and fairness of those papers ; and in more than one instance their inaccuracy at least, has been distinctly proved. But, as we said before, we take them for the present as accurate, and trust, even upon their shewing, to prove that Great Britain, so far from exceeding her Union engagements, has considerably underpaid the proper and rightful amount of her separate liabilities. Sessional paper No. 194 of 1834, is that from which we shall quote at present. Ac- count No. 21, pages 26 and 27 of that paper, gives the " gross receipt on all articles charged with excise duties in Great Britain, which were not subject to duty in Ireland in each year since 1800." The gross amount up to, and inclusive of, 1816, will be found to be Account No. 22, gives the " difference between excise taxation in the two coun- tries" during a similar period, by which we find that up to the assimilation of rates on malt in 1815, Great Britain paid an excess of taxation, amounting to On spirits she paid up to 1816, about. On hides and skins, about On auctions, paper, vinegar, &c., about. On glass bottles, about Account No. 23, gives the gross receipt of " revenue under management of com- missioners of taxes in Great Britain, 1801 Carried forward, £108,400,000 29,250,000 42,000,000 2,900,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 £185,650,000 z 338 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Brought forward, £185,650,600 to 1833, both inclusive. This account in- cludes all species of what are specially called " taxes" in finance accounts, such as assessed taxes, land tax, income and pro- perty do., &c. &c. ; and for sixteen years the amounts will be found to make £263,800,000, and the Irish being (accord- ing to account No. 24) £49,230,000, the latter sum deducted from the British, will give an excess of British payments of " taxes" in sixteen years, ... ... ... 214,570,000 Now in his speech on Wednesday, April 23, 1834, upon the " Repeal of the Union," Mr. Rice stated that the excess of customs' payments by Great Britain, for the thirty years since the Union, was £130,000,000, and of stamp duties £106,000,000, making a total of £236,000,000 for thirty-three years. The difference of customs' duties was chiefly before 1817, so up to that time ■we may take their product as ... ... 80,000,000 Stamps, in the 16 years, ... ... 53,000,000 Her excess Total exclusive payments by Great Bri- of payment ^^y^ j^ ^jjg sixteen years from the Union to ditto.' the consolidation ... ... ... £533,220,000 But we have seen that her exclusive liabi- bilities for the same period were ... £930,018,395 Deduct payments, ... 533,220,000 Therefore she failed in providing by an- nual taxation for the sum of ... 396,^98,395 And having created debt in the interval to no higher amount than ... ... 280,000,000 She still left, as an unfair " common" charge ... ... ... ... £116,798,395 Unfair _—— thrown on Ireland was therefore unfairly made liable tolsizT for 2-1 7ths of this amount, or ... £13,740,918 THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 339 Thus we have a new feature of the iniquity of the con- solidation. The bankruptcy of Ireland, which was the pretext for it, was greatly aided and brought about by this high amount of most unjustifiable exaction. The argument cannot be mistaken nor disputed. Had Great Britain discharged, by separate taxation, or borrowing, all that was separately due by her, these £116,798,395 would not have been thrown upon the common taxation. The latter then might have been lessened by their amount. Of that relief, Ireland's share would, of course, have been at least the £13,740,988 noted above ; and so considerable a relief would have very materially lightened the ruinous pressure upon her resources, and enabled her to go on until the twenty years of the act of Union had elapsed, and the period of revision arrived in due course of law. In the foregoing calculation we have omitted the res- pective and aggregate payments of both countries, on the charge of " redeemed" debt and sinking fund. We did so for the sake of simplifying, as much as possible, the calculation : but lest it should be said that it was for the purpose of gaining any paltry advantage in the argument, we subjoin in a note the material for the reader to correct ovir calculation.* The results he will find not very dif- ferent from those just stated ; and Ireland's unjust li- ability reduced by very little more than a million — being £12,614,784. * Total debt charges, on debt redeemed S ?^f * ,^"*^^"' ^^l^'fJ^'Ji? and unredeemed, and sinking fund, in the ] ^'•^^^"^' ^^'^^^-^^^ 16 years from the union to 1817, i^^tt ^ .r, aaa •' £o77, 140,444 which deduct, as before, from the sum total of expenditure, and proceed as before with the computation and comparison, of the respective proportions of liability to the common expenditure, and liability to the separate debts. In that part of our calculation which speaks of the creation of debt, we are to be understood as speaking of the »e« creation : — i. e. after deduc- tion of fleht paid off. z2 340 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Allowance can be made for this difference at the end of our calculation up to the present time ; and the omission of the sinking fund in the preceding part, will (oAving to the abandonment, several years ago, of that fallacy) much facilitate the connexion with Avhat remains to be stated. Having therefore ascertained the state of affairs during the sixteen years that the Union proportions were indis- putably in operation, we come to the period subsequent, and up to the present time. Progress of Qur Calculations will here require that the acknowledged this injus- ... . t'^'e- injustice of the Union rates on Ireland, and consequent necessity of an alteration in her favour, shall be, for the present, omitted from consideration ; and that we proceed to sum up the separate liabilities of Great Britain, from 1816 to the present time, as they would have stood had the financial arrangements of the Act of Union continued actually, as most undoubtedly they did legally, (that is, legally, according to the wording of the Act of Union itself — the measure of consolidation having been passed, as we have seen, in direct neglect and violation of the Union terms,) in force and operation. This mode of considering the liabilities of Great Britain is, of course, the most favourable for her, and the least just towards Ireland, inasmuch as the latter was and is entitled to a revision of the Union rates in her favour, and to credit for what they have caused to be exacted and drained from her, over and above what her rightful contribution should have been. We take matters in this Avay, because anxious to shew that even giving our opponents the benefit of some of their main and most utterly ungrounded assertions and assump- tions, Great Britain can be proved to have paid much less than she ought, in the way of separate taxation, Instead of THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 341 having so enormously overpaid, as Mr. E-ice laboured to demonstrate in the debate of 1834. There having been a decrease of the amount of the united debt charges of both countries, since the consolida- tion up to the present time, Ave will give Great Britain the further advantage of supposing, for the present, that that decrease was altogether on her side of the account.* Its amount being about four millions, we subtract that from the sum of funded and unfunded British debt-charge as set down for the year 1816, ending 5th January, 1817, in the return we have already quoted (No. 35 of 1819). This brings the annual debt-charge of Britain down to £24,250,000 ; which, in twenty-nine years, up to the pre- sent time, would have amounted to £703,250,000. But as it is the excess of liabilities, as well as of payments, that we are seeking to give credit for, we must subtract the Irish debt-charge during the twenty-nine years. Taking' its annual amount at the statement for 1816, in the return quoted, we find it to have been in twenty-nine years £118,900,000, which would leave a British excess of debt- liabilities amounting to, ... ... ... £584,150,000 The " common" expenditui'e during those yeai's amounted to £778,670,000, of which £91,608,000 being 2-l7ths, and £595,454,000 being 15-l7ths ; the British e^'cess (\3-l7ihs) was ... ... ... ... ... 503,842,000 Total, Great Britain from 1817 to 1846 £1,087,992,000 To which add her liabilities from 1801 to 1817, as given before ... ... ... 930,018,395 Total rightly exclusive British liabilities, 1800 to 1846, being 45 years ... ...£2,018,010,395 * Although this and simWax suppositions for the sake of argument, will, we are well aware, be taken as admissions by our opponents, yet we make them in order to avoid protiactcd discussion, on comparatively unimportant points ; we are, however, perfectly ready to prove them, at a j)roj)er time, to be mere suppositions, not facts. 342 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Her payments (». e. ex- clusive payments,) during that period, were as tol- lows : — According to Lord Mont- eagle, in 1834, they had amounted, up to that year, ^^^^^^3^433^472 We have seen that in 1842, 1843 1844, and 1845, they averaged £12,442,000, being ^^^^^^^ in the aggregate.. "• And that in 1841, (before the income tax, &c.) they were ^ 262,000 not more than ... ••• ' We therefore only want their amount in the 7 years from 1834 to 1840, both in- clusive, to complete our state- ment. _ An examination ot the re- turns bearing on this subject (the latest of them is ^o. 979 of 1842) will most •Ibundantly justify our say- ing, that on the whole, (with- out going into minute and inti-i?ate ^detail,) the British exclusive payments during those seven years, were less than in 1841. But for argu- ment's sake, taking them at £7,250,000 annually, we have to add to the gross sum of ^0^50^ Total exclusive payments by Great Britain in 45 years, Z produce of taxation ... £1,204,243,4 /u Taking the highest pos- sible amount of the ««<^ crea- tion of debt, (»•• e. ot the ex- cess of debt created over debt reduced,) we have a THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 343 further sum of (say in round numbers) ... ... 270,000,000 Total " exclusive" pay- ments by Great Britain in 45 years, by taxation and by money borrowed, ... £1,474,243,470 But we have seen that her " exclusive" lia- bilities, during that period, amounted right/id- lyto ... ... ... ... £2,018,010,395 Deduct her " exclusive" payments, ... 1,474,243,470 fotai of the deficiency of - . t-^ An i-n'C r^o/» British ex- Denciency, ... £o43,7ob, y 25 elusive py- ments since Union, and This sum has therefore fallen upon the common contri- fair liability butions ; and the result to Ireland has been, that she has quence. had to pay to a standard of taxation, aggravated by the above amount. Had the Union terms, bad as they were, been faithfully observed, no part of the above would have been defrayed out of taxes bearing equally on Ireland as on Great Bri- tain ; and therefore the common taxation could have been reduced so much. Ireland's share of this relief would have been 2-l7ths, or £60,443,166,* and to this extent (aggravated, of course, by the sums that must be due as interest and compound interest) she has been defrauded by Great Britain. And this upon the most favourable statement of the case for the latter country, and grossly unfavourable state- ment for Ireland ! • The sixty millions of relief of taxation of which we have shewn Ireland to have been defrauded, up to the present time, under the Union arrange- ments, must, of course, be increased in amount by a third, or more, if we consider the interest and compound interest annually accruing. Thus, on this score alone, we can, if we choose to insist on it, when the two countries come to draw stakes, reduce the pretended 112 millions of debt of Ireland in 1816-17 to 30 millions : and even then it would be a cjuestion whether we were doing justice to ourselves. ^44 APPENDIX NO. VI. It is nothing to say, in answer to this, that Ireland failed in supplying her pecuniary quota under the Union arrange- ments. In the first place, they were confessed to have been too high ; and consequently the quota for Great Bri- tain must have been too loio. And had Ireland not been overstrained in her resourses, by what we have seen to have been a most unduly extended scale of taxation, she might have discharged all just obligations. But the fact is, that whatever may have been her defaultings previous to 1817; she has since the consolidation, which came into force in that year, been compelled to pay, on an average, what was at the least equivalent to the confessedly unjust Union rate of 2-l7ths of common expenditure; and her having paid that proportion, is a decisive proof of the inefficacy for good of the measure of consolidation : for it professed to relieve her from that unjust rate — whereas, in reality, she had afterwards to pay it, as we shall see — and did so pay it, not in consequence of greater financial ability^ but from the accidental circumstance, that the imperial expenditure became reduced so considerably, as that the post-\^\Q ex- actions from Ireland amounted to the proportion of 2-l7ths of its sum. ppt,,i]s of Having now, we trust, completely demolished all argu- injustrref of nient from the separate taxation of Great Britain — an dation'act!^' argument on which Mr. Rice, in 1834, and his imitators and followers since, put great reliance — we proceed to shew, in as accurate detail as possible, the practical working of the consolidation act. We have, by the calculations just concluded, established \\\Q first of the three positions Avhich we enunciated a few pages back (p. 328), viz., that Ireland has had, to the ut- most of her ability, to contribute towards the greatly superior original debt of Great Britain. The other I'acts — viz., her undue contiibutions (under THliT TAXATION INJUSTICE. 345 either of the suppositions, as to the debt-arrangements, since the consolidation) to the active common expenditure, remain to be established. Before laying this branch of our subject open, it is Prciiminavy • 1 1 1 • 1 1 n 1 • lemurks on necessary to explain the grounds on which Ave shall claim insh uncre- an amount additional on the annual stated revenues of tion. Ireland, under the title of uncredited taxation. Ireland has for many years received a large proportion of her consumption of foreign articles through English ports, instead of directly into her own ports. The con- sequence has of course been, that the amount of duty being paid in England, is credited to the British revenue, while it is, in fact, an Irish contribution to the state taxes. To enter into minute detail on this point would be of small advantage, if even possible, through the mass of difficulty in the way, occasioned mainly by the shifting regulations that have affected those articles. A return was moved for, a few years ago, (Acct. No. 6, of Paper No. 305, of 1842,) that was expected to bring out something like accurate data for the computation of this uncredited revenue of Ireland ; but the following note prefixed to it by the officer in whose department it was prepared, will shew liow impossible it is, to make even Avhat might be considered a distant approach towards accuracy : " The deficiencies in this statement are ascribable — first, to the imperfect provision In Ireland for separate registration of foreign imports through Great Britain — a cause the operation of which affects the whole period prior to 1819 ; and, secondly to the absolute want of any record of the trade of the two countries since 1825." Under these circumstances, it would be but waste of time to attempt to particularize. We shall therefore seek to give the reader no more than a general idea on this 346 APPENDIX, NO. VI. subject, and refer him chiefly to adverse authorities. The late Lord Congleton, well known to be an anti-repcaler, and one Avho, in his work on financial reform, laboured hard to cut the ground from under the repealers, was ob- liged to admit that the amount uncredited to Ireland of her contributions to the general taxes, was at least an annual £300,000. He made, however, a gross error in this calculation ; as at the time he wrote the foregoing, Irish tea duties, to the amount of between £400,000 and £500,000, were paid in British ports, and ought therefore to have been added to the sum he mentioned ; making it £700,000 instead of £300,000. There was, further, the benefit to the British exchequer from the expenditure of the absentee rents — an amount that can only be guessed at. The absentee drain is computed variously, by various au- thorities ; all, however, concurring in shewing a ruinous increase of the drain since the Union. The committee " on the circulating paper, specie, current coin of Ireland, Absentee ^ud cxchaugcs betwccn her and Great Britain," which sat in 1804, (report reprinted 1810, and numbered 18 of that year) estimated it at £2,000,000. Mr. Alderman Hayes, in his excellent speech at the repeal discussion of the Cork corporation, April, 1843, remarked : " In 1825, the absen- tee drain, according to the Edinburgh Review, was £3,500,000 ; in 1827, Lord Cloncurry put it down at £4,000,000 ; and in 1828, Mr. Nicholas Philpot Leader, a very accurate statist, estimated it at the same ; a later au^ thority estimates it at £4,650,000 annually." To this we may add, that one of the authorities cited by Mr. Hayes, Lord Cloncurry, has, within the last two years, increased his former estimate of the drain by absen- tee remittances, up to £6,000,000. Taking these figures, which are corroborated by other authorities, there must have been, when Lord Congleton drain. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 347 wrote, at least, a sum exceeding four millions going away annually to absentees. Of this sum 5-6ths, at least, were spent in Great Britain ; and taking the per-centage of benefit to the exchequer of the latter country on that ex- penditure, even so low as four per cent, we have £130,000 to add to Lord Congleton's estimate of imcredited taxa- tion ; making the latter (taking the tea duties also,) £850,000 — to which add an average sum of about £65,000 quit and crown rents, (see paper No. 222 of 1842,) making in all £915,000 annually ; for which Ireland got no more credit than did the island of Japan. Nay, as Ave have before remarked, these very payments went to increase the apparently enormous disparity between the revenue of Great Britain and her own ; and thereby to subject her to an insulting and unjust comparison ; to a pitiless increase of taxation, whensoever it might please Great Britain to put it on ; and finally, to a denial of a fair share of the remission of taxes. We do not mean to say that this was the average amount of her uncredited payments since 1817. It has been very frequently exceeded, and exceeded considerably. There were also several years when the drain fell short of it — although not so short as to establish the foregoing as an average. In the years last alluded to, tea being admitted to pay duty in Irish ports, the £400,000 or £500,000 upon it ceased to be an uncredited payment, and went directly to swell the Irish revenue. But we contend that Lord Con- gleton understated the amount, exclusive of the tear-duties. General A writer, who wrote in his spirit, viz. — that of endeavour- heruncreiu- ing to show that Ireland had rather been treated with in- ation.'^' dulgence than with injustice in financial matters, — Mr. William Stanley, in his Facts for Ireland^ — a work com- posed directly to win a prize, promised some years ago by 348 APPENDIX, NO. VI. Lord Cloncuny, to any person who should make out the best case against the assertions of the advocates of Repeal, found himself compelled to admit, that this uncredited taxation of Ireland was £340,000 annually — thus exceed- ing the estimate of Lord Congleton by about one-eight. And he, like the nobleman just named, omitted the tea-tax, then paid in British ports, the per-centage of benefit on absentee expenditure, and the quit and crown rents. But the reader can, to some extent, form a judgment for himself, of the uncredited taxation under the bead of customs' duties alone, by simply turning to the finance accounts of the year, and comparing the details of receipts on customs, in Great Britain and Ireland respectively. He will there see, on articles of common consumption in both countries, the Irish duties' receipt so low sometimes as £20, £10, and even 30.9., while British receipts amount to many thousands. If the small Irish receipts really represented Irish consumption, then would there be a most triumphant argument against taxing Ireland equally Avith Great Britain, or in a rate at all approaching to equality. But the fact is, they do not really represent it ; but the surplus consumed in Ireland, over what they represent, is imported from England, and duty paid on it there, to the benefit of the English exchequer, and the detriment of the Irish. Sugar, as well as tea, has sometimes been charged in the Irish schedule of customs' receipts, and sometimes in the British. At this moment a portion of payments upon its Irish consumption is made in Great Britain ; as we import from thence all the refined sugar that we consume, and some of the raw sugar. Taking all these various matters into consideration, we do not fear that the slightest charge of exaggeration, at least, can be made against us, if we as- THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. eume the uncredited taxation of Ireland to have amounted to an average sum of £400,000. Having now cleared away the necessary preliminary matter, we proceed to show what Ireland has paid since 1816, up to and including the year 1845. The calcula- tion cannot of course include the present year — as the finance accounts for it will be not closed until the com- mencement of 1847. 349 Average British Income, 29 yrs. Average Irish Income, do. United Expenditure. Charge of United ifebts. £ 51,000,000 4,400,000 £ 54,000,000 £ 29,300,000 From the British income, £400,000 uncredited pay- ments by Ireland are to be deducted, and to be added to the Irish income. The account will then stand thus : — Average for 29 years, up to 1846. British Income. Irish Income. 1 United Expenditure. Do. Charge of Debts. £ 50,600,000 £ 4,800,000 £ 54,000,000 £ 29,300,000 since the consoli- Now, if the boast of the defenders of England's policy, p^of of who assert that she, at the consolidation ofi.^ih.'^ exchequers, t'orHons'''^" did hona fide take on her shoulders the unjust inc'^rease ofiand the Irish debt, be allowed, it will follow that Ireland muLo have had only her Union-amount of debt to provide for ever since, viz. — an annual charge of £1,240,000.* This * Here again the reader -will perceive we are taking the unfair statements of 1801, for the amounts respectively o"" British and Irish debt, instead of the fairer statements of the beginning of the year 1800. But our endeavour is, to beat our opponents on their own grounds. 350 APPENDIX, NO. VI. subtracted from her average of income, will be found to leave a surplus of the latter to the amount of £3,560,000, which has gone to England as the Irish contribution to the common expenditure. The amount of that common expenditure can be found by subtracting the average united charge of debts from the average united total ex- penditure, and to the sum so found, viz. £24,700,000, the Irish contribution does not, indeed, bear the condemned proportion of two-seventeenths ; but it does bear the far higher and more grievous proportion of two-fourteenths. Thus, in this first case, Ireland has had no real relief; as, although no longer called upon to pay to an amount of debt confessed to be unjust, her rate of contribution in other ways has been increased and forced up to the very uttermost point that it could possibly be raised to. We take the second case now, viz., that of an arrange- ment and apportionment between the two countries of the increase of the Irish debt. It is here necessary to com- pare the increase in both countries, taking their debts, as we said before, to be most conveniently represented by the annual charge in each case. The annual charge on the British debt in 1801, was £17,718,851. And on 5th January, 1817, when the con- solidation took place, it was £28,258,416, Avhich was an increase of 59 per ceiii. The annuak charge on the Irish debt in 1801, was £l,244,4^'b3, and at the consolidation it was £4,104,514, beinrg 228 per cent, increase. This disproportionate increase was on all hands confessed to have been caused by thelunfair rate of contribution im- posed on Ireland by the Uiion, and therefore was an unfair increase. Had her debt increased only in the same ratio as that of Great Britain, me debt-charge would not have THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 35 1 been more than £1,978,659, leaving an excess of £2,125,855, which is the amount of the totally imjustifiable increase of Irish debt. If, instead of consolidation in 1817, the Union- rates had been continued, and the above unjust increase of the Irish debt had been put on the two countries in the proportion of those rates, the result would have been as follows : — Debt-charge, Ireland, at Union, was Added 67 per cent, increase up to 1817, Further additions, 2-l7ths of the unfair excess of increase, Total debt-charge, Ireland, But the imperial debt-charge in 1817> was And is now no more than Therefore there has been a reduction of Of which Ireland ought to have 2-l7ths to her credit ; viz. £481,015 — which sum sub- tracted from her charge as stated just now, reduces the latter to To which 2-l7ths of the common expenditure, ■ (viz. £23,910,404,) Total average expenditure of Ireland, 29 years, This sum, subtracted from her income before stated, viz. Leaves as surplus of the latter, ... *v... £1,244,463 734,196 250,100 £2,228,759 £32,342,500 28,253,872 £4,088,628 £1,747,744 2,905,882 4,653,626 4,800,000 £146,374 We trust we have shewn wAat we proposed to ulo jji this unlimited branch of our subject ; and demonstrated beyond the exaction poAver of cavil, that in whateiei light we view the financial inconse-*" T 1 • 1 • 1 • 11 quence of arrangements at the consomaion, their result has not *''»* mea- been to diminish the measvre (f the exactions from Ire- land. The power that act gav3, of drawing indiscrimi- / 352 APPENDIX, NO. VI. nate contributions from Ireland, has caused every shilling of her revenues, after payment of her debt charge, and the extremely reduced local expenditure of government, to be drawn away to England. And the same power would equally cause the abstraction from Ireland of every farthing of additional revenue that could at any time accrue ; Ire- land being, by the consolidation, pledged in all her re- sources, present and future, and mortgaged in every acre, for the enormous amount of the English national debt. Until the latter be paid off, not one penny can Ireland (under the present imperial arrangements) expend upon purposes of her own ; no matter though her revenues were to become tenfold or twentyfold more fruitful than they are at present. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 353 SECTION IV. CONTENTS. That Ireland has thus paid in a higher proportion than before the Consolidation, is simj)lij owing to the vertj great Redaction of the Common Expenditure since the period of that measure — Tlte Union Terms ought to have been tried under that reduced expendi- ture — ^Why they were not. Most of the points of the Petition at the commencement of this article, are noio proved. There remains but one of importance — viz., Non-Comp)emation (by remission of taxation) for the fiscal Injustice done to Ireland^— Evidence of this. General Bemarks on the Money Drains from Ireland — the Absentee Drain the Revenue Drain, credited and uncredited, ^c, ^c. — Balance of Public Money i^emitted from one country to the other — Circumstances of the Expenditure of the Irish Revenue. We have before remarked, that the payment by Ireland, why she ' J. ^ J ^ ' has not sunk since 1816, of at least 2-l7ths of the common expenditure, ""'^''^ t^ose ' A exactions. and we may add here, even the payment of 2-12ths, as in the first case in the calculation just concluded was shewn, will furnish no argument against us, drawn from any sup- posed increase of her liability. As we said before, we repeat, that her being able to pay such high proportions was the simple consequence of the immense reduction oi expenditure since the war. We have alluded to this re- duction before ; and therefore need now only add, that the calculations which were put forward at the time of the 2 A treatment. 354 APPENDIX, NO. VI. consolidation, to sliow the inability of Ireland, were made ■upon an expenditure which, though somewhat reduced from that of preceding years, was still (according to the finance accounts just then presented for the year in which that measure passed, viz. the year 1816) £122,604,986; an amount that in the succeeding year was found to have fallen nearly twenty-eight millions ; and the year after to have further fallen twenty-six millions. And even the exaggerated expenditure of the last few years, has been no higher at any time than fifty-five millions — thus shewing a total reduction of expenditure since the year 1815, of no less than sixty-six millions. Further evi- Had thc proposcrs of the consolidation been really dis- dcncBs of her unfair poscd to act fairly towards Ireland, they ought, at the least, to have given her one year's trial under the system of extensive reduction of expenditure. But the plain fact and truth would seem to be, that they were afraid to give Ireland any opportunity of escaping the tremendous liabi- lities with Avhich they were about to saddle her. And this feeling and motive of theirs, were rendered the more active just then, as tlie united clamour of the people of England and Scotland compelled ministers to give up in that year the property tax, Avhich Mr. Rice (Lord Monteagle) him- self estimated to have been a relief of £14,617,823, and the malt war-duties, which from his returns would appear to have been a further relief of about £2,400,000 — makinof altogether seventeen millions, which were taken off the people of Great Britain in the year 1816! An additional reason was thus supplied to get, by one means or the other, the security of the resources of Ireland to the public creditor of Great Britain ; and the consequence to the former country has been, as we have before remark- ed, that no matter though her revenues were to become ten-fold or twenty-fold more fruitful than they are at pre- THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 35i sent, not one tax can she take off or reduce, by means of a surplus, in any year : all such surplus must go to England, there to be applied to the payment of the enormous, and for the greater part, rightfully exclusive, liabilities of the latter. The reader is now again referred back to the petition at the commencement of this article ; when he will find that paragraph 6 has been proved. Paragraph 7, as to the non-compensation of Ireland, by means of remission of taxation, is the next point in issue. The details, up to last year, will be found in the Ses- sional Papers of the Plouse of Commons, 305 of 1842, (continuing former returns,) 652 of 1845, further conti- nuing the same — and in Paper No. 573 of 1843. RELIEF OF TAXATION, IMPOSITION OF TAXATION. From 1800 up to ) 1815, (inclusive.) \ From 1815 up to \ 1845, (inclusive.) \ Totals up to 1846. Great Britain, Ireland. Great Britain, Ireland, £47,114,574 £2,664,090 £30,000,000 10,620,000 £4,450,000 * 1,060, 000 £47,114,574 £2,664,090 £40,620,000 £5,510,000 Thus, up to and including last year (1845), the relief given to Ireland was to that given to Great Britain, less than as one to 17 — while her share of the taxes imposed, has been higher than as 1 to 7. * The abandoned spirit duty of 1842—3 is of course deducted in the Irish account. 2 A 2 356 APPENDIX, NO. VI. The tax-reductions of this year were the corn-duties, and those on certain articles of foreign import: chiefly those used in the production of manufactures. England is a larger consumer of bread-stuffs — it is needless to say, than unfortunate Ireland ; and, therefore, the relief, in the respect of the corn duties, must be more sensibly felt by her. The relief on articles of import subsidiary to manu- factures, must also be more beneficial to her — as she has so many and such various branches of flourishing industry in that line ; and Ireland has none save the linen — a branch not affected by these reductions. We are therefore entitled to say, that the unjust dis- parity of taxation-relief existing at the end of the last year against Ireland, has, if anything, been aggraviated by the tax-reductions of this year. At the same time we, of course, do not protest against, but in the highest degree approve of those reductions, as having been called for by humanity and by sound policy. But this we say, that they are not to be pleaded against Ireland's case for fiscal redress — if we waive our right to plead their greater benefit to Great Britain. The exemption of Ireland from assessed taxes has been much spoken of; but the fact is, that these taxes were taken off" her, solely because they were failing of produc- tion. The last receipt on them was under £300,000 ; and notices to discontinue objects of this taxation were yearly increasing. From 1816 to 1820 these notices were (by parliamentary papers 258 of 1816, and 142 of 1819) as follows : — Carriages. Horses. Servants. Hearths and Windows Dogs. Packs of Hounds . 5,584 4,031 1,806 66,440 2,038 4 And from the paper before referred to, viz.. No. 305 of 1842, we find that Great Britain relieved herself under this head to a much greater amount, viz. : — THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 357 Assessed taxes, Ireland, reduced 1818, ... £240,090 Do. do. repealed 1816 to 1823, 296,000 Total relief under these heads to Ireland, £536,090 Assessed taxes* Great Britain, reductions since 1816, ... ... ... ... £2,584,514 Total repales of various kinds since 1823, ... 2,594,688 Total relief to Great Britain ... £5,179,202 Referring once more to the taxation petition of the Re- a^in^^ the peal Association, it will be seen that we have now substan- fore^giveuT tiated all the statements in it, respecting which there is any- considerable amount of controversy. On the subject of the drains from Ireland there is less dispute ; that is, with regard to their existence — the latter being acknowledgedj by all ;. while their operation for evil to Ireland is, strange to say, denied by some. On an average of statements, the absentee drain may be taken at five millions. The " Revenue drain' from Ireland has been a serious Revenue drain. grievance ; and if accidental circumstances have, of late years, mitigated It, we have no security whatever (but rather a well-grounded conviction to the contrary), that with a modification of those circumstances the grievance will not revive and be increased. The " revenue drain" varies in amount fi-om year to year, with occasional great disparity. The greater or less consumption, in one year, as compared with another, of foreign goods Imported into Ireland through England, affects that portion of our revenue drain, which we have denominated " uncreditcd revenue" — i. e. duty paid on the goods in question by the Irish Importers — paid in Eng- land and credited to the British exchequer ; whereas, being money coming from Ireland, and paid out of" Irish 358 APPENDIX, MO. VI. pockets, it ought to be credited to her account of state contributions. This uncredited revenue Ave have else- where averaged at a low estimate of £400,000 per annum. The drain of credited revenue, consists of that portion of the Irish revenue as stated in the annual accounts, which goes to England after payment of all government expenses and charges upon this side of the water. Account No. 2, page 13, of par. paper, 652, of 1845, gives the following statement of the remittances from the British Exchequer to the Irish, and vice versa, from the year 1800, to the 1st January, 1845. Remitted from the British Exchequer to the Irish, ... £7,495,862 ,, from the Irish Exchequer to the British, ... 26,785,453 Balance of Irish remittances .. £19,289,591. This would appear to be the aggregate amount of the drain of credited revenue in the period mentioned. Account No. 3, of the same paper, (p. 21,) shews that during the year 1844, there were no remittances either way, and the same has been the case in 1845 and 1846. There has, therefore, been no drain of credited revenue during these last three years : but this is a casual circum- stance, mainly owing in the last two, at least, to the appalling calamity which has come upon upon the country, in the destruction of the food of the people. The increas- ed expenditure which has been occasioned in the govern- ment offices in Ireland by the efforts to meet this emergency, has absorbed the money which otherwise would have gone to England. Lord De Grey's fortifications, the expenses of the state prosecutions, and the spy-money lavished in 1844, in Ire- land, will account for there having been no drain in that year. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 359 The greater the amount of revenue, the greater the drain must be. Every shilling spared beyond the cost of the reduced government establishments in this country, being, as Ave have before remarked, sent off to England. Another item of drain is to be noted in the amount of monies paid by Ireland for such manufactures imported, as her poverty has caused her to cease supplying herself with. As linen may be said to be her only subsisting branch of manufacture, it is not too much to suppose that she pays (on all others) a sum, which, deducting commission and other small local charges, must exceed, at the very least, two millions of our money. We have named an amount which to many will appear ridiculously low. But our object throughout this article has been to understate rather than exaggerate, in every thing we put forward. After the "manufactures' drain," as this item may be shortly styled, comes the drain by rea- son of the mortgages on estates, private loans, &c. This may fairly be considered a consequence of the Union ; as the general impoverishment of the country by that measure has mainly brought these embarrassments on the landlords. The lowest estimate which is made of the amount of these embarrassments of the landed interest, is to the value of one-third of the rental of the country, or about £4,500,000. The loan dealings of parties engaged in trade, or of fundholders, Ave have no means of estimating, and, therefore, it Avould be the merest guessing to attempt to set doAvn a specific sum for the interest annuallv goino- to England on the sums borrowed by individuals in Ire- land. Taking them, however, into consideration in closing our calculation of the drains from Ireland, Ave may safely say, that, irrespective of the drain of credited revenue^ (which has had but three years of intermission, out of the 46 years 360 APPENDIX NO. VI. since the Union,) the drains by reason of the absentee remittances, the payments on manufactures, the uncredited revenue, and the interest of private loans, cannot be less than eight millions a-year ! During the years that the drain of credited revenue was in action, half a million more was often added to the foregoing amount. With reference to revenue drain, we know that we shall the'statc- ^° ^^ caught up here with the remark, that Ireland is bound "^Drains," ^^ Contribute to the general imperial expenditure, as well some arc ^^ to defray the expenses of her local government. This Li*wfuuy due. WO ucvcr meant to deny, nor even to omit acknowledging. But the question is, what rightfully should the propor- tion be of her general contribution ? Is it that which exists, or should it be greater or less ? We have shewn, in treating of the evil consequences of the consolidation act, that the existing rate of Ireland's contribution is limited only by the measure of her ability. Land and assessed taxes, and the differential excise duties, woidd exist in Ireland were she able to bear them. The land tax it was never pretended could be put upon her. The assessed taxes had to be taken off, by reason of their unproductiveness. The excise duties have not been tho- roughly equalized, from the example of the failure of the results of equalization in other cases. The income tax Ireland was exempted from by Sir Robert Peel, with the distinct and full confession, that such was the fiscal weak- ness of Ireland, that the income tax, if imposed upon her, would not pay the costs of collection. And that weakness he has since borne further, and most unwillingly, witness to, by abandoning, as a failure, the additional spirit duty, by which, in 1842, he sought to screiv some trifling increase of contribution out of her poverty. The proportion of her fiscal ability to that of Great THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 361 Britain, we have before stated to have been calculated by Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Goulburn, at about as one to nine. This is quite sufficiently accurate for our present purposes. The proportion and manner of our expenditure are now how our to be shewn. For this purpose we are constrained to take expended. the year 1844, as being the last for which we have a distinct account of Irish expenditure. (See Acct. No. 3, at page 21, Acct. No. 3, of Sess. Paper 652, of 1845.) EXPENDITUDE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, YEAR 1844, (ended January, 1845.) Gt. Britain. Ireland. Civil List, Annuities, Pensions, Salaries, "] Allowances, Diplomatic Salaries and Pensions, Courts of Justice, and mis- . cellaneous charges on the Consolidated fund. Army and Ordnance Miscellaneous on Annual Grants Navy, £ 2,100,000 6,830,000 3,000,000 5,858,000 \ £ 585,000 1,270,000 375,500 Against this set down our uucre- dited revenue payments, viz. 450,000 17,788,000 2,380,500. This shews our proportion of payments on the expendi- ture, exclusive of that on debt, to be to the British, as one to six and a-half. There is an apparent anomaly in stating Ireland's pay- ments as one to six and a-half, and her fiscal ability so low as one to nine. But it is to be recollected, that the items we have given do not embrace the payments on " Debt," which alone constitute more than half the entire imperial expenditure. These payments on " Debt,''' which we may call the debt expenditure for the sake of distinctness, are of two kinds, 1st, those in discharge of i\\Q principal of the debt, 362 APPENDIX, NO. VI. which first can only be in case of a surplus of revenue, over the entire sum of annual expenditure ; and 2nd, (which must be met annually,) the payment of the interest and charges of management of the " Debt." When there is a surplus of the imperial revenue over the sum total of expenditure of all kinds, a disbursement takes place for the reduction of the principal of the national debt. But when, as often happens, there is no such sur- plus, the " debt expenditure" as we have just called it, is confined to meeting the annual interest and charges. In either and both cases the monies of Ireland, as we have before shewn, are applied to the fullest extent they can go, in the same manner as the monies of Great Britain. There is a delusive item in the official statements of the Irish account which would lead one to believe that she is accountable only to a certain limited extent ; or, in plain words, to a certain limited amount of debt ; and that that once satisfied, she would be at liberty to apply any sur- plus of her revenue to the liquidation of the capital of such limited amount of debt, irrespective of the state of the British finances. For instance — in the year we have quoted, viz. 1844, we find (see page 21, of the paper 652 of 1845, before quoted,) set down for the " Dividends, Interest, and management of the public Debt 7 ^, nq^ f^r^ >, payable in Ireland, .. ... ... ... ... J ' ' ' This, however, as a brief consideration of the words we have put in Italics will shew, is really no limitation what- ever of the general liability of Ireland to all British expenses, past, present, and future ; and is simply nothing more than the specification of the interest and charges on that portion of the united debts which is held by parties iyi Ireland. Convenience suggested, and has maintained, the practice of having disbursements on account of THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 363 such portion, made on the spot in Ireland, out of the Irish revenue, ere any part of it goes over to the imperial exchequer. This general liability of Ireland enables the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exercise a complete command over Irish monies to the very last shilling, and very last penny. Convenience guides him in the disposition of it. As it does so with regard to the defraying debt-charge payable in Ireland, so does it with regard to the meeting the ex- pences of an active nature in that country. Tliat is to say, all such expenses, when accidentally exaggerated, as peculiar circumstances, already mentioned, have in the last three years made them to be, as well as when reduced, are defrayed with Irish monies, before any part of them goes over to the imperial exchequer. The current government expenses in Ireland being undue PIT*! • •! exactions thus at once defrayed out of the Irish monies, Avitliout re- ftom ire- ference to proportion of any kind, the residue left to apply to the imperial debt is often very small. It will, there- fore, be at once seen that the fiscal ability of Ireland may be as low as one to nine, or loAver ; while her payments on the items of expenditure, exclusive of that on "debt," may be, and are in a much higher rate. Of course, in those years when the expenditure on those items in Ireland falls to its due proportion to that in Great Britain, Irish money is applied to British debt-charge. This application of it is one of the worst grievances of the act that consolidated the two exchequers, debts, &c., in 1816. We have before proved the consolidation act illegal, and that, therefore, Ireland's debt-liability ought to be limited. And at page 35 1 we have made a rough estimate of what ought, under a fair state of things, be the outside of her liability in this respect, viz., £1,825,600. Now, if Ireland 364 APPENDIX, NO. VI. were called upon to pay to the expenditure clear of debt, only in the proportion of her general fiscal ability, viz. as one to nine, instead of as one to six and a half, there would have been upwards of £705,000 spared to her, which with the sum of £1,395,000 credited to her for that portion of debt payable in Ireland, would of course have left a sur- plus of Irish monies, after every fair charge of every kind, of £274,000, applicable either to the liquidation of the capital of her just debt, to the remission of her taxation, or to the relief of the present distress. In 1845 she therefore paid too much on the items given, by the difference between the fractions ^ and ^j. Great Britain, on the contrary, paid too little. The lat- ter' s payments on the same items, ought to have been so high, as that the sum we have set down for them in the table of expenditure already given, should have been nine times as great as that we have set down for Ireland. This would have brought matters to something like equality. If this made the sum total of payments exceed the real wants of the empire, taxation should be reduced equally. But whatever might be done as to that, the excess of British debt-charge should no longer be allowed in any way, directly or indirectly,, to inflame the liabilities of Ireland. Neither should one pemiy of Irish money go to England. English revenue is not spent here; why then should Irish revenue be spent in England ? We are not denying that there might be imperial purposes out of Ireland, to which the latter ought to contribute. But those purposes are not English or Scotch, they are what their name indicates — belonging to the empire — such as expenses in foreign wars, and upon the colonies and dependencies in time of peace. With regard to the first, the consent of the Irish parliament should be THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 365 had to them, ere tliey avouIcI cause us any liability ; and with that consent we, of course, would have no right to complain.* With regard to expenses in time of peace in the colonies and foreign dependencies, we should not be liable to them, unless ensured compensating advantages of the most unequivocal kind. In short, we advocate having the Irish revenue spent in Ireland, in the years when there is a surplus over local expenses ; as it is in those when it no more than meets the latter. If the exigencies of the empire will not permit that taxation should be lightened, let England send over a large division of the fleet of the empire to our noble and secure harbours, and we will maintain it at our own cost : let other public establishments be apportioned between us in a similar manner ; and thus, while we shall find great benefit and relief from having the money which is taken from us in taxes spent among us in public expenditure, instead of (as is so often the case) going to England, the United Kingdom will be in no way the loser ; nor will the jealousy of the people of Great Britain be excited, as it naturally would be, if taxes were, however justly, taken off us, and left upon them. The principle of an amicable financial arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland is contained in the foregoing. * It is evident that the interference of the Irish parliament would have been most useful in the case of the enormous Canada, China, and India expenses, to save Ireland from the unjust liability to them. ADDENDUM "TAXATION INJUSTICE." Much has been said of the generosity with which public money has been given to Irish purposes. We will not delay to com- ment upon the wrongful use of the word " generosity," where rightfully the word " compensation" should have been employed. We shortly reply to the assertion — first, by referring those making it to the speeches of Mr. Goulburn, late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir J. Graham, late Home Secretary, and Sir Robert Peel, late Premier, who, during the last session of parlia- ment, did each and all more than once confess that monies given to Ireland had resulted in profit to the empire, and that a high rate of interest, and much of the capital had been repaid by her on that portion of the public money which had been advanced by way of loan. We next reply by drawing attention to the following extracts from parliamentary papers. The first speaks for itself. It is from page 98 of the Finance Accounts presented this year : — 368 ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX, NO. VI. THE TAXATION INJUSTICE. 369 Several times the author of this work essayed to get a cor- responding return for Great Britain. The following is the nearest approach he has been enabled to make to his object : — Return in detail of all sums of mo- ney voted, or applied, either as loans or grants, in England and Scotland. — (Sessional Paper 305 of 1842, including Paper 152 of the same session.) Account for Great Britain similar to the Account for Ireland, in the Finance Accounts. — (Sessional Paper 652 of 1845.J Communications with Ireland, 1,014,679 Canals, 1,004,461 Harbours, Docks, and Light-Houses, 2,072,144 Roads, Bridges, and Ferries, 1,203,250 Fisheries, 84,828 Improvement of Cities and Towns, 1,242,958 Churches, 1,704,111 Colleges, 164,750 Prisons and other places of Confine- ment, 781,497 Relief of the Poor,... 56,557 Advances by Exche- chequer Bills, Com- missioners for Pub- lic Works, &c., 6,332,150 £15,661,385 £ Canals, Rivers, and Drainage, 1,310,600 493,600 905,650 33,000 616,800 128,600 108,000 Law Courts, Gaols, and Lunatic Asylums, 302,000 Work-Houses and Emi- gration, 1,734,700 Water-works 27,000 Compensation for Da- mages during Riots... 80,750 Thames Tunnel, 250,500 Sundries, 21,600 £6,012,800 The author has been unable to make out how much of the sums stated in the later account, that is to say, in the paper No. 652 of 1845, is to be added to the returns in the paper 305 of 1842, upon the respective items in each. It is certain, however, that a large proportion is to be added. And independent of either of the returns already quoted, the following are to be added from other returns : 3T0 ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX, NO. VI. Sessional Paper 394 of 1842. British Fisheries, from 1809 up to 1830 £927,000 Do. last year a.x^d this ; (see finance accounts) ... £60,000 British Museum, National Gallery, &c. (see finance accountsj £1,400,000 Royal Palaces, and Houses of Parliament ... ... ... £4,000,000 Scotch Union Compensation (still paid) per annum, ... £4,500 Besides other items of minor amount, such as the payments on the various items stated in the returns quoted, since those returns were made, &c., &c. On the whole it is an under estimate to say, that more than thirty millions have, in this way, been given to Great Britain. With regard to the payment of interest by each country respectively, the fact was admitted by the three ministers whom we have mentioned, that Ireland was made, and did and does duly pay, five per cent interest ; although the money loaned was got by the government at .3 and 3^ per cent. Meantime some of the loans to Great Britain bore no in- terest at all, as, for instance : — Thames Tunnel, ... ... ... ... ... £260,000 Highland Roads and Bridges, &c. ... ... ... 90,000 And some smaller items, (for which see account No. 7, p. 24tf pa/?er 160 0/ 1839,) about:— ... ... ... 50,000 £400,000 The paper last quoted — one moved for by the then Chan- cellor of the Exchequer himself — is the only one we have met at all specifying the rates of interest on money advances to English works. It mentions a sum of £5,622,050, at three per cent., another of £1,655,052, at four per cent., and £130,000, at rates between three and four. We have no continuation of this paper to the present time. We cannot close this Addendum without a short statement illustrative of the increase of the portion of debt charged in the public accounts as " debt payable in Ireland," and alluded to at page 362 of this work. THK TAXATION INJUSTICE. 371 1 TRANSFERS OF STOCK—IRELAND AND GREAT BRITAIN. J To Ireland from England. Vice Versa. 9 years up to 1833, Ditto to 1842, Years 1842 and 1843 ... Do. 1844 and 1845 ... £ 14,608,515 7,250,940 3,365,678 3,553,545 £ 5,725,757 6,379,566 1,385,715 523,242 28,778,678 14,014,280 From ... £28,778,678 Transfers to Ireland, Take ... 14,014,280 Do. to Great Britain. Balance £14,764,398 to Ireland. The act allowing these transfers passed in 1824. Some of the transfers then made were of monies a long time invested in the English funds, and now transferred for the convenience of receiving dividends. Others were from the following cause : the cessation of the protecting duties caused Irish capital to he withdrawn from trade and invested in stock. In the second period of nine years the amount fell one-half, while the transfers to England rose. In the last two periods the amount transferred to Irish stock has again increased, while that to English stock has dimi- nished. The reason is the income tax in England. The sessional papers of 1842 already quoted, stated that Great Britain had repaid £6,200,000, whereas Ireland up to that year had repaid £6,400,000, and has since repaid, as we have seen, nearly another million. 2 B 2 APPENDIX, No. VIL THE "CHURCH TEMPORALITIES" GRIEVANCE. The following is a report on this subject, drawn up by- Mr. O'Connell, in 1840: Report of the National Association of Ireland^ upon the chief Grievance of Ireland — that which relates to the Ecclesiastical Revenues. Your Coramittee beg leave to report that they are unani- mously of opinion, that the most afflicting beyond comparison of all the grievances which the people of Ireland sustain, is to be found in the Misappropriation of the Ecci^esiastical Revenues of Ireland. The great denominations of Christians — the Catholics, the Episcopalian Protestants, and the Presbyterians, constitute the overwhelming majority of Christian persuasions in the British empire. In England the majority of the people belong to Episcopa- lian Protestantism. 374 APPENDIX NO. VII. lu Scotland the majority of tlie inhabitants are Presbyte- rians ; and In Ireland the majority of the inhabitants, in much greater proportion, are Catholics. In Scotland the number of Catholics and Protestant Dissent- ers have not been enumerated — all that is known with accuracy is, that the Presbyterians are by far the most numerous class of Christians in that country. In England the Catholics and the Protestant Dissenters have also not been enumerated with accuracy ; but it is quite certain that the Episcopalian Protestants are in a decided majority. The only data from which a comparative estimate of the Episcopalian Protestants and other Christians can be made in England, consists in this, that the churches of the Episcopa- lians amount in round numbers to 11,000, and the chapels and meeting-houses of the Catholics, and of the Protestant Dis- senters, amount in round numbers to 9,000. This, as we have said, leaves a decided majority to the Epis- copalian Protestants. It should, however, be observed, that wherever there is a Catholic or Dissenting place of worship, there is certainly a congregation ; because the chapel or meeting-house could not exist unless there were a congregation. It is not so, however, with the Protestant Episcopalian churches — very many of them were erected in ancient times, and in many places the ' congregations are totally disproportionate with the number of churches ; but after every abatement that upon these facts can be made, it must be admitted that the Episcopalian Protestants form the majority of the Christians in England. With respect to Ireland, an enumeration has taken place, and the relative numbers have been ascertained. The ]^2^isco- palian Protestants are found to be, in round numbers, eight hundred and ^fty thousand, the Presbyterians, sixmundred and fifty thousand, and the Catholics, six million Jive hun- dred thousand. Suchwere the relative proportions in 1831. Under these circumstances the natural result would be, that the ecclesiastical state revenues should be appropriated in each country to the church of the majority of the inhabitants, and. in England accordingly, these revenues are appropriated to the Protestant Episcopalian church,' the church of the ma- jority. In Scotland also the ecclesiastical state revenues are, and THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES GRIEVANCE. 375 ought naturally to be, applied to the sustentation of the Pres- byterian church, being that of the majority of the Scottish people. Upon the same principle it is perfectly clear that the eccle- siastical state revenues of Ireland ought to be applied to the church of the majority of the Irish people. But in the government of Ireland every thing is anoma- lous. The people of Eng-land would not endure that the ecclesi- astical state revenues should be applied to the church of the minority. The people of Scotland would not endure that the ecclesi- astical state revenues should be applied to the church of the minority. But the people of Ireland are compelled to endure that the ecclesiastical state revenues of Ireland should be appro- priated to the church of a very small minority of the Irish people. This simple statement demonstrates at once the gross injus- tice done to the people of Ireland. It demontrates that that equality, which alone would constitute a real Union between the countries, does not exist. It shows that the Episcopalians in England, and Presbyterians in Scotland, assume and enjoy a practical superiority over the Catholics in Ireland. Your Committee emphatically assert, that this is the master grievance — the most insulting injustice which Ireland sustains under the (so called) Union. The people of Ireland demand the redress of this grievance in the first instance, and before any other. It is a grievance in which they will no longer acquiesce in silence. It is a declaration of the inferiority of the Irish people, to which they will no longer submit without remonstrance. It is a gross and odious insult, superinduced upon a glaring and palpable injus- tice. It is, in short, a giant evil, not to be longer tolerated, without taking all legal, and peaceable, and constitutional means to procure legislative redress. If there were any prospect of procuring from the united: parliament redress for this giant evil, your Committee would recommend the people of Ireland to petition unanimously and simultaneously for its abolition. But it being futile to the utmost point of absurdity, to expect any such redress from the united parliament, your Committee recommend the most unre- mitting and strenuous exertions of the people of Ireland to 376 APPENDIX, NO. VII. procure the Repeal of the Act of Union, and the re-estab- lishment of a domestic legislature, in which only the great questions respecting this grievance could be calmly considered and righteously determined. There is another point of view in which this grievance be- comes more prominent in its insulting nature towards the Catholics of Ireland. It is this : — Firstly — The professors of the Presbyterian religion con- stitute but a small minority, when compared with other deno- minations of Christians. They cannot in the British empire amount to anything like three millions. Secondly — The Episcopalian Protestants are calculated at about eight millions, and that calculation is probably over- rated. Thirdly — The Catholics of Ireland have had a considerable accession since the last census ; that augmentation has probably been attributed, with justice in some measure, to the numbers of other Christians who daily join the church ; whatever be the cause, it is likely that the Catholics are now not less than seven millions in Ireland. The Catholics in Great Britain are estimated at two mil- lions, thus giving the Catholics an aggregate number of nine millions in Great Britain and Ireland. If then we look to the empire as a united kingdom, we shall find that the Presbyterians, who are in a complete comparative minority, enjoy the state revenues of the Scottish church ; that the Episcopalian Protestants, who are also in a minority, enjoy the state ecclesiastical revenues, not only of England, but of Ireland also ; and that the Catholics, who, as a particular per- suasion of Christians, are in a majority, contribute to the state ecclesiastical revenues of the three countries, and enjoy no part whatsoever thereof. In every point of view, therefore, the injustice done to the Catholics of Ireland, is plain, palpable, glaring, and ought not to be endured, without taking all legal means to procure an adequate remedy. It has, indeed, been asserted, that the possession of the state ecclesiastical revenues, is essentially necessary to the continu- ance of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland, and still more necessary, if possible, to the existence of the Episcopalian Pro- testant church in Ireland. Your Committee beg leave to remark, that this assertion is THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES GRIEVANCE. 377 not theirs ; that, on the contrary, they are thoroughly con- vinced, that the persons who make it, inflict the strongest re- proach, they should say calumny, upon the Presbyterian and Protestant Episcopalian churches. In fact nothing can be more derogatory to any christian persuasion, than the convic- tion that its strength consists in money; that the vile mammon of this world is its pabulum vitce ; and that it would cease to exist, so soon as it should cease to be sustained and fed with the national gold. Your Committee carefully abstain from introducing into this report, any species of polemics ; but they respectfully submit this proposition to the christian world : that any sect or per- suasion of Christians, whose tenets necessarily require the sus- tentation of public money, can have no claim upon either the judgment or the sympathy of those who believe that faith is beyond price, and that genuine Christianity is too pure to re- quire the support of filthy lucre. Your Committee refer all timid Christians differing from the Catholic Church, to the illustrious example that church has given in Ireland to the nations of the earth ; and to the demon- stration which the Irish Catholics have afforded, of the efficacy of the voluntary principle of support, wherever the religious feeling prevails. In Ireland the state revenues were spoliated by act of par- liament and regal tyranny, from the Catholic Church in that country ; but the religion remained, and its votaries were not diminished . It was thus proved that Catholicity had a deeper basis than aught the wealth of this world can bestow. In Ireland the churches were desecrated — the altars were plundered — the shrines were violated — the ecclesiastical build- ings were strown in ruins upon the soil ; — but the religion remained, and its votaries were not diminished. Where is the honest and conscientious Protestant who will or can admit, that his own religion has not the same power to resist the effects of the deprivation of the state revenues, which Catholicity in Ireland has exhibited, and gloried in the exhibition. Again — during centuries of persecution, and at the present moment, the people of Ireland, taken as a nation, the least wealthy in Europe, supports, without any state revenues, a hierarchy perfect in all its parts ; four archbishops and twenty- three bishops — in all twenty-seven ; deans ; archdeacons ; vicars generals ; prebendaries ; parish priests ; curates ; to the 378 APPENDIX, NO. VII. amount altogethei* of more than four thousand individuals. Instead of diminishing the numbers of the Catholics, they have considerably augmented during three centuries of an emaciating persecution — the law grinding to the dust what the sword had spared. Who is it that, in the face of such an experiment as has been made in Ireland, will assert that it is necessary to the existence of a church, with its full hierarchy and its thronging votaries, to lean for support upon the state, and to be supported by state revenues Mark again the triumph of the VOLUNTARY PRINCI- PLE, as it is exhibited in the ecclesiastical buildings in the city of Dublin alone : within the last few years, sums, which (as nearly as they can be calculated) in round numbers may be safely stated thus, have been expended in the city of Dublin : The Cathedral Church of St. Mary, Marlborough-street, ... £43,000 Church of St. Andrew, Westland-rovv, ... ... 21,000 St. Paul, Arran quav, ... ... ... 12,000 St. Michan, "... ... ... ... 8,000 SS. Michael and John, ... ... ... 6,000 St. Catherine, ... ... ... ... 7,000 St. Nicholas, ... ... ... ... 6,000 Sums collected for intended improvements, or actually ex- > jq j^qq pended upon the other parochial churches, say, ... 3 ' Church of St. Francis Xavier, ... ... ... 8,000 The churches and ecclesiastical buildings in Dublin, of the "J Augustinians, calced Carmelites, discalced Carmelites, Ca- ( nn nnn puchins, Dominicans, and Franciscans, estimated much C ' below the real sum, at ... ... ... ... J Five Convents of Sisters of Charity estimated low at ... 15,000 Three Convents of Carmelite Nuns, say, ... ... 9,000 Convent of poor Clares, of Dominican Nuns, and of the } q ^^^^ Presentation, say, ... ... ... ...} ' There are, besides these, ten schools for boys, instituted by the Educational Monks ; and at least sixteen Confraternities for teaching the Christian Doctrine. The expenses under the two latter heads we are unable to calculate ; but we have shewn, that in the city of Dublin alone, there has been ex- pended upon the voluntary principle, in buildings for the spiritual provision and education of Catholics, a sum exceeding £170,000. Is it not preposterous, that the Irish Catholics, who make such exertions for the sustentation of that religion which they believe to be true, should also be compelled to support a church which they believe to be erroneous ? Every man of political THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES GRIEVANCE. 379 integrity must feel, that while England is free from such an oppression, while Scotland is free from such an oppression — Ireland ought not to stand alone in the single deformity/ of being compelled to submit to that oppression ! There are two points upon which your Committee would de- sire to be emphatically understood ; they are these — First, — They do not claim that the ecclesiastical state reve- nues of Ireland, should be applied to support the church of the majority of the Irish people. Although on principle they might be entitled to make such claim, yet they totally repudiate it. — They totally disclaim any such appropriation. No Pro- testant could more distinctly denounce that appropriation than the people of Ireland should and would do. It is an ap- propriation which would essentially injure, currupt, and corrode the religion to which it should be so applied. Secondly, — Your Committee claim, that the ecclesiastical state revenues should (as the existing vested interests dropped off) be applied for the general benefit of the community ; that is, for the support of the poor ; for the promotion of education ; and in works of charity, applicable equally, and without distinc- tion, to all sects and persuasions. There is one topic more to illustrate the grievous injustice done to the Catholic people of Ireland, by the appropriation of the ecclesiastical revenues to that small minority which consti- tutes the Protestant Established Church in Ireland ; it is this — The Presbyterian Established Church in Scotland, being the church of the majority of the Scottish people, is in possession of the ecclesiastical state revenues in Scotland, although those revenues were founded by their Catholic ancestors for purposes of exclusively Catholic piety and religion — purposes, many of them directly opposite to, and contradictory of, the tenets and practices of Presbyterianism. The Episcopalian Protestant Church in England, being the Church of the majority of the English people, is in possession of the ecclesiastical state revenues in England, although those revenues were founded by their Catholic ancestors for purposes of exclusively Catholic piety and religion — purposes, many of them directly opposite to, and contradictory of, the tenets and practices of Episcopalian Protestantism. Thus, in Scotland and in England, the church of the major-, ity possess ecclesiastical revenues, granted not by Presbyterians or Protestants of any description, but by Catholics. Whereas in Ireland the church of the majority is that of 380 APPENDIX, NO. VII. the persons who founded the ecclesiastical state revenues — it is the only church able and willing to perform and carry out all the intentions of the donors and founders of those revenues — yet these revenues are taken from the church of the majority of the Irish people, and bestowed by laAv upon the antagonist church of a small minority of that people ! ! ! It does, therefore, appear manifest, that every circumstance attending the ecclesiastical state revenues, increases the nature and extent of the grievance on the score of church temporalities, inflicted upon the Catholic people of Ireland. Your Committee cannot conclude without once again warning the people of Ireland — First — That there is no prospect of obtaining the salutary change they require, from the United Parliament. Secondly — That the injustice they complain of, can be re- dressed only by means of the Repeal, of the Union. Thirdly — That such Repeal must be sought for only by legal and constitutional means — there must not be any outrage, violence, or crime whatsoever. Any outrage, any crime, any illegality, on the part of the Repealers, would give strength to the enemies of Ireland, and would weaken, and ultimately destroy, the best energies of her friends. Let us then prosecute our agitation for Repeal, within the law and constitution, with the sanction of all good men, and, we trust, with the blessing of God. Irishmen of every sect and persuasion have an identity of interest in restoring to their country the blessings of a domestic legislature. But above all, the unjust and insulting inequality which the Union inflicts upon Ireland, ought no longer to be borne in silence by Irish- men. We close by reminding the Association emphatically — That Scotland does not support the church of the minority in Scotland, and that the Scottish people would not endure such an appropriation of her ecclesiastical revenues. That England does not support the Church of the minority in England, and that the English people would not endure such an appropriation of her ecclesiastical revenues. But that Ireland, on the contrary, supers this GIANT, THIS monster evil; and the first duty oj- Irishmen must he to obtain, by constitutional and legal means, its total abolition. DANIEL O'CONNELL, April, 23, 1840. Chairman of the Committee. THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES GRIEVANCE. 381 All that it is desirable to add to the foregoing, is con- tained in the following extract from the debate on the motion of Mr. Ward, (M.P. for Sheffield, and at present Secretary to the Admiralty,) relative to the Irish Estab- lished Church, June 11, 1844: " Upon the point of the Church's revenue there was no longer any difference : for his noble friend (Lord Eliot, then Secretary for Ireland) had, with a frankness that did him honor, brought over Mr. Erck, the Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and directed him to give him (Mr. Ward) access to all the docu- ments in his possession, for the express purpose of avoiding the differences that occurred last year in their calculations. " Last year his (Mr. Ward's) estimate was ... ... £552,753 Lord Eliot's 432,023 Difference, 120,730 " Both of these estimates were very much under the mark. He believed he might take the " Episcopal Revenues, as ... ... ... £151,127 Deans and Prebends, ... ... ... 34,481 Minor Canons and Vicars Choral, ... ... 10,525 Parochial Tithes, 486,785 Episcopal ... ... ... .. ... 9,515 Received by dignitaries, .. ... ... 24,360 £196.13.? 520,660 Deduct 25 per cent for Rent-charge, ... ... ... 130,165 Remain, 390,495 Add Episcopal Revenues, (Tithes deducted, £33,875,) ... 162,258 552,753 tJlebes, as valued by Ecclesiastical Commissioners, ... 80,000 Ministers' money, ... ... ... ... ... ... 10,000 Demised tithes, .. 8,000 Total present income, ... ... ... 650,753 " Out of this, 750,000 Episcopalians (deducting 100,000 for ' Weslei/ans,' from the return of 1 834) were to be provided for — being 1 8s, or 20^. a-head, for the spiritual instruction of each ! 382 APPENDIX, NO. vir, " Besides the above monies there had been For Arrears of Tithe, £1,000,000 „ Churches, 595,000 „ Glebe-houses, 366,000 „ Church Education Grants, (Kildare-st. Society, &c. &c.) 1,378,000 Making a total of 3,339,000 laid out since the Union. " Mr. Shaw (who followed Lord Eliot, the latter replying to Mr. Ward, but not disputing his calculations) said, ' with re- gard to the amount of present revenues of the Church in Ire- land, he did not materially differ from the hon. gentleman Death, and other changes, from time to time must make some alteration, according to the moment the return was taken, and the gross should not be confounded with the nett income It was gratifying to him that on the fact of figures there was no substantial difference between them. " He (Mr. Shaw) made the nett Income of the Beneficed Clergy £320,350 19 10 Their Income and that of their assistant Curates ... 377,050 12 5 He allowed m round numbers for the permanent re- 1 r.^ nnn 1 J T.- r • '^ t 00,000 a-year. duced Uishoprics ... ... ...J •' The Clergy, 370,000 The balance of Deans and Chapters remaining at ... 20,000 ,, And the ultimate property of the Ecclesiastical Com- ^ missioners applicable to churches in lieu of Cess, as >- 100,000 ,, calculated in 1836, by IVlr. Finlaison, at about, ) Making the total of every description of future ? necn nr^ .^ •> Church property, as nearly as possible ... $ *^au,uuu ^ anm. This sum appeared to Mr. Shaw, quite a small provi- sion for the cliurch of 6 or 700,000 persons, in a country where upwards of seven millions support their own. Mr. Ward's estimate is far more likely to be correct, he having had all the documents before him. While sus- picion must attach to that of Mr. Shaw, if only from the circumstance of his having had to give up moving for a return of the real amount of the bishops' income, from their refusal to assist in having it made out. MISCELLANEA. Mr. W. J. Battersby, in his most pains-taking and pa- ^^"^Jf^^.y'*' triotic work, " The Repealer s Manual ; or. Absenteeism J^™"*^- and the Union re-considered ;" printed in Dublin in the year 1833, has a chapter on the question of "What was the original design of the legislative Union ?" He states his opinion, that it was " a determination to render Ireland subservient to England." The late Chief Justice Bushe stated the animus of the measure more forcibly, but not more truly. He said that it was " an intolerance of Irish prosperity." Mr. Battersby quotes, as his witnesses in support of his charge, Sir William Petty, Sir Matthew Deaker, Primate Boulter, Postlethwayt, in his work entitled " Britain's Commercial Interest," printed in Dublin, 1767, &c. &c. From Postlethwayt he quotes this passage : — " In lieu of the advantages Ireland would receive from a Union, Postie- she should give England at least £500,000 annually. Sup- a Union. posing that Ireland, by exerting her competition in trade against foreign rivals, should thereby gain a nett million per annum ; would it not be well worth her while to give up to England one-half (or the sake of the other? As England does already possess no Inconsiderable share of the lands of Ireland, so the Union would prove an effectual method to vest the rest in her ; for as the riches of Ireland would chief y return to England, she continuing the seat of empire, the Irish landlords would be little better than tenants to her for allowing them to make the best oj their estates !" 384 MISCELLANEA. With the indignant ejaculation, after the above, of, " There is love of Ireland for you ! " Mr. Battersby goes on as follows : — " The infamous policy of those who suggested this Union on the above grounds, became so much the subject of alarm to the Irish people, shortly after the publication of Postlethwayt's book, that SmoUet gives us the following account of the oppo- sition, which the mere report of it created in Dublin. "After proving (in the 16 ch. p. 75-6) the loyalty of the Irish Catholics under unparalleled insult, he adds : — " Although no traces of disaffection to his Majesty's family, Dublin of appeared on this trying occasion, it must nevertheless be ac- mere report knowledged, that a spirit of dissatisfaction broke out with related by extraordinary violence among the populace of Dublin. Smoiiet. u -pjjg present Lord Lieutenant was not remarkably popular in his administration ! " He had bestowed a marked favour upon a gentleman whose person was obnoxious to many people in that kingdom, and perhaps failed in that affability and condescension which a free and generous nation expects to find in the character of him to whose rule they are subjected. " Whether the offence taken at his deportment had created enemies to his person, or that the nation in general began to entertain doubts and jealousies of the government's designs, certain it is, great pains were taken to propagate a belief among the lower order of people, that an Union would soon he effected between Great Britain and Ireland; in which case this last kingdom would he deprived of its parliament and independency, and he subjected to the same taxes that are levied upon the people of England. " This notion infamed the populace to such a degree, that they assembled in a prodigious multitude, and searched for the Journals, which, had they been found, they would have com- mited to the flames. " Not content with this outrage, they compelled the members of both houses whom they met in the streets, to take an oath that they would never consent to such an Union, or give any vote contrary to the true interest of Ireland. "Divers coaches belonging to obnoxious persons were de- stroyed, and their horses killed ; and a gibbet was erected for one gentleman in particular, who narrowly escaped the un- governable rage of those riotous insurgents. MISCELLANEA. 385 "A body of horse and infantry were drawn out on this occasion, in order to overawe the multitude, which at night dispersed of itself." Dalrymple, in his '■'■Memoirs" (4^o edit., vol. 3, p. 48,) g-ives an account of a curious anecdote concerning- the Union, the substance of which is, that in 1776 it was intended that the Earl of Rochford should succeed the Earl of Harcourt as Lord Lieutenant of L^eland ; that Lord Kochford received his Majesty's note to that effect ; that one of the leading conditions of that appointment was to bring' about an Union with Eng- land; that on conversing with Lord Harcourt his opinion was, that to attempt an Union with L'eland in time of war was in- sanity — that the minds of the Irish should be long prepared for it — that no Union should be attempted unless the wish for it came from Ireland, and not even then, unless there were a sufficient bod^ of troops there to keep the mad men in order ; that the two great objections to it were, loss of money hy the absentees, and loss of importance by diminishing the peers and commoners ; — tha,t seeing the difficulties. Lord Rochford de- clined the intended honor. Thus we find the idea of the Union originating with the Crown or Cabinet of England, 23 years before the measure was carried ; and we find the anticipated evils it would entail upon Ireland urged as the reason why it ct)uld not then be adopted. We find that Earl Chatham also in 1763 had the Union in his eye, not as a " healing measure" for Ireland, but as beneficial to Great Britain. Declara- onsagaiiibt e Union. We now turn to a few opinions and declarations on record, against the Union, uttered at the time it was pro- % posed. * We quote first from the debate of the Irish bar, at a i^e^ateof meetm"; held by them m I<99, to petition against the^^'^^^"- '^ •' ' i o daj-j 9tli measure : — Dec, iTSfo,) on the Union. That every possible modification of an Union necessarily in- Mr. p. bw- volved evils not to be compensated for The merging "^owes. of our representatives in an assembly, where they will be more than quadrupled, and where, if even unanimous, they could have little influence. Tiie perpetual existence of the united legislature in another country, to the influence of whose wishes aud opinions they v/ill be subject. The enormous increase of 2 c 386 MISCELLANEA. absenteeism — of taxes — of our national debt (3/r. P, Surroives.) Mr. Barnes. To his Own knowledge, and he had been himself a seaman, half the strength of the navy of England were drawn from Ireland ; and yet, English captains have had the insolence to say, they would have no more Irishmen than mainmasts ! To all the world, except the East Indies, we already have a right to trade ; and a Union would give us no more than we have now of that trade. — (Mr. Barnes.) Mr. Gooid The British minister must for ever be subservient to the will and interests of the British merchant ; the British merchant must for ever be subservient to his own interest I argue from the necessary operations of the human passion on the human conduct, when I say that the British merchant will force the British minister to be British, even on the subject of Irish affairs. And when the question of self-interest once speaks, it speaks in a voice of thunder In such a situation, as well might you expect from the oyster the saga- city of human intellect ; as well might you expect from the famished tiger, the sympathy of human feeling ; as from the British minister and British merchant, a due and impartial con- sideration, or a feeling and honest conduct, touching the affairs of this our country. — (Mr. Goold.) Mr. Orr. Jn the present state of the connexion, England cannot offer an equivalent for the surrender of our constitution. Formerly we were in a different situation. Our parliament was controlled by that of England, and we had no trade or manu- facture but the making and exporting linen cloth. The direct importation of goods from the West Indies, rum excepted, with- out landing them in England, was prohibited, as also the export- ation of woollen goods. — (Mr. Orr.J The Debate arose on the motion of Mr. William Saurin : — " That a measure of Legislative Union, is an innovation highly dangerous and improper to propose at the present juncture of tJie country." Amendment — to adjourn a month. For adjournment, ... ... ... ... 32 Against ... ... ... ... ... 166 Resolution carried. Our next is the opinion of the celebrated Chakles James Fox on the subject. IVIISCELLANEA. 387 At a meeting' of the Wilis- Club, May 7, 1800, at the Crown Seethe and Anchor Tavern, in London — Mr. Fox in the chair, sup- tion, or ported by the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Holland, &c. &c. kS?°" • 1 rr>i 11 1 /TT \ I'ost," Mav, Mr. Fox said Ihe whole scheme (Union) wentri,isoo.' upon that false and ahominable presitmption, that we could ^ j p^^ legislate better for the Irish, than they could do for them- selves — a principle founded icpon the most arrogant despotism and tyranny. There was not a more clear axiom in the science of politics, than that man was his own natural governor, and that he ought to legislate for himself. No other being could enter into his feelings, or have anything common in sympathy with his nature ; and therefore the legislature of a people must flow out of, and be identified with, the people themselves. It was idle to talk to Ireland of the word Union, since there could be no such thing as a real Union, on an equal footing, between countries so disproportionate and unequal. Could the Irish believe that in this connexion they were to have an equal and availing voice in legislating for England, as the English were in legislating for Ireland ? There was no maxim more true in philosophy or in politics than the great moral doctrine, " Do as you would he done hyV Examine this measure by that rule. Can the Irish bring themselves to believe that they will have any share or influence in legislating for England? Take it on the other side. What Englishman would submit to see his destiny regulated and his affairs conducted by persons chosen for Belfast or Limerick? He believed that even in the present temper of the people of England, they would not sub- mit to the project of the Union, if they thought that the Irish members were to have any influence on British legis- lature. What then we could not suffer, we ought not to impose. We ought not to presume to legislate for a nation, in whose feelings and affections, wants and interests, opinions and preju- dices, we have no sympathy. It can only be attempted on the principle of the most arrogant despotism. It was an attack on the pride of a gallant nation, and was calculated to reduce them to the state, as many of their own patriots had said, of a dependent province ; and it was, in his opinion, a most auda- cious attempt, after all that appeared in that country, since it was adding insult to injury, to call it a measure in which the Irish acquiesced. When martial law was proclaimed, to tell them that you will do this because you will it, and to denomi- nate the forced silence of the country a consent, is to add 2c2 388 MISCELLANIiA. insult to injury. He had thought it his duty to say so much, as misrepresentations were abroad as to his sentiments on this suhject ; and he was desirous of informing- all who might take any interest in his opinions on the matter, that he certainly was of opinion, that the principles of Whiggism alone were the safe, true, and only ground on which a nation could be governed. The chief of these was, that the sovereignty of the people was the only legitimate source of that representative system, by which a nation could be secured in its rights and liberties. Orange TIic next matter Ave have to throw in, is relative to the opposition of OiiANGE Lodges to the Union. The resolu- tions that follow, are taken from the newspapers of the year 1800, particularly that entitled " The Constitution, or Anti-Union Evening Post." RESOLUTIONS AGAINST THE UNION. Orange Lodge No. 883, at Newfownbarry, \Gth Feb., 1800. l^tln^^^^ " That Orangemen ought to come forward as Orangemen HEARTS and Irishmen, and declare their sentiments against a legislative o^'g^men Union, which now, or at any other time, would be of the in 1800 most fatal and pernicious consequences to the real liberty of Ireland. " Edmund Beatty, Master. " WiLLOUGHBY BuSTAKD, Dep. " Alex. M'Claughry, Sec." Lodges Nos. 780 and 785, Dublin, Wth Blarch, 1800. " That the constitution of 1782, under which our country has advanced to greatness with uncommon rapidity, is that which as Orangemen we have sworn to defend, and will in- violably maintain And we are determined to co-operate with our fellow'-SLibjects in every legal and proper method to oppose so destructive a measure. "J. Charles, Secretary." MISCELLANEA. 389 Lodge 391. — Wattle Bridge, County Fermanagh, 1st March, 1800. " That strongly attached to the constitution of 1782, a settlement ratified in the most unequivocal manner, so far as the faith of nations is binding-, we should feel ourselves criminal were we to remain silent while an attempt is made to extin- quish it. " That imprest with every loyal sentiment towards our gra- cious sovereign, we trust that the measure of a legislative Union, which is contrary to the sense of all Orangemen and the nation at large, will be relinquished. " John Moore, Master.'* Lodge A2Q— New toivn- Butler, I8th March, 1800. " That no lover of his -country could have proposed a mea- sure fraught with such destructive consequences ; and that all supporters of it should be execrated by their fellow-subjects and by posterity. " John Corry, Master." Lodges 382 and 907- ** That as Irishmen, we feel insulted by the degrading argu- ments held forth in favour of the Union, as if the Lords and Commons were so weak, helpless, and ignorant, that they can neither support nor legislate for Ireland without British aid." Orange Lodge 652. " At a full Meeting of Lodge 652, held in Dublin, on Monday evening, 3rd of March, 1800, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted : — " Resolved unanimously — That as a loyal and Protestant Association, attached as we are to our most gracious sovereign and happy constitution, we cannot, without the utmost indigna- tion and regret, see a resolution from the Grand Lodge, en- 300 MISCELLANEA. joining us to silence on the momentous question of a Legislative Union. " Resolved — That sorry as we are to differ in opinion from the Grand Lodge, we should consider our silence as being ac- cessory to the annihilation of that constitution which, as Orange- men and Freemen, we have solemnly sworn to support. " Resolved — That we consider the friends of that abominable measure — a Union with Great Britain — as the greatest enemies to our most gracious sovereign — a measure which would destroy our existence as a nation, and eventually involve the rights, liberties, and even the lives of the people of Ireland. " Resolved — That, from the above considerations, we solemnly protest against that destructive measure, and do call upon our brother Orangemen by every legal means to support that con- stitution for which we risked our lives and properties in the hour of danger. " G. S., Deputy Master. " H. F., Secretary." Lodge No. 500. *' At a full meeting of the Orange Lodge No. 500, held in Mountmellick, the 4th day of February, 1800, the following address was unanimously agreed to : — " To ALL. Brother Orangemen. " Conscious as we are of our loyalty to his Majesty George the Third, and of our attachment to the happy constitution of this kingdom as established in 1782, we have beheld with sur- prise and concern an address from the Grand Lodge to all Orange- men, entreating them to be silent on a question whereby that constitution is vitally attacked, and whereby the loyalty of the most valuable part of our countrymen is shaken or endangered. We cannot think It the duty of an Orangeman to submit im- plicitly in all cases of the utmost moment, to the directions of a lodge which is principally composed of persons who are under a certain influence, which is exerted against the rights of Ire- land ; and while a lodge under such influence, shall give the law to all Orangemen, we fear that our dearest Interests will be be- trayed. We therefore protest against its Injunctions of silence, and declare, as Orangemen, as freeholders, as Irishmen, in all the several relations in which we are placed, that we consider the extinction of our separate legislature as the extinction of the MISCELLANEA. Irish nation. We invite our Brother Orangemen to elect with- out delay a Grand Lodge, which shall be composed of men of tried integrity, who shall be unplaced, unpensioned, unbought, and who shall avow this best qualification for such a station, that they will support the independence of Ireland and the Constitution of 1782. " Signed, " Henry Deery, Master. " John Robinson, Deputy- Master. " Abraham Hyland, Secretary." 391 Orange Lodge 651. " At a numerous IMeeting of the Brethren, it was ** Resolved unanimously — That we deeply lament the neces- sity which compels us to differ from the Grand Lodge, as we conceive no body of men whatsoever have so just a right to take into serious consideration the subject of a legislative Union with Great Britain as Orangemen, who have associated and sworn for the sole purpose of supporting their king and con- stitution. " That we see with unspeakable sorrow an attempt made to deprive us of that constitution, of our trade, our rising pros- perity, and our existence as a nation, and reducing us to the de- grading situation of a colony to England. " That we consider this measure but an ill return to men who clung to that constitution in the hour of danger and distress, and risked their lives and properties in its support, to have it snatched from them almost at the moment they saved it. " Signed, " George Gonne, Master. " Samuel H. Smith, Pro Sec." Dublin, \9th Feb., 1800. There Avere resolutions of a similar nature passed by Lodges 184, 467, 413, 167, 544, and many others. With regard to the legislative Union between Scotland and England, briefly alluded to in our text, a few remarks may here be added. 392 MISCELLANEA. Two very angry disputes between those countries, tended mainly to the adoption of the measure in question. First, the dispute in matters of trade ; second, that as to the suc- cession to the throne. The Scotch liad attempted a settlement on the Isthmus of Darien, half military and half commercial. The com- mercial object was, to facilitate the operations and transac- tions of an East India Company, which they were seeking to establish In rivalry of England. The latter country stopped at nothing to crush this attempt — prevented her own merchants from taking any share in it, and used influ- ence in foreign ports to hinder subscription lists from being opened to speculators there. The supplies sent from Scot- land to the brave and hardy band of adventurers who had gone to Darien to establish the settlement, were stopped on the seas, and the hostility of Spain against the attempt was inflamed and encouraged. The result was, the defeat of the attempt, and nearly total destruction of those who had made it. Not content with this, England kept a fleet of twenty-four men of war at sea, for the express purpose of cutting up the commerce of Scotland with France. The Scotch had fitted out cruizers to endeavour to protect their trade, and make retaliations on that of England ; the ship Worcester was taken by them, and her commander, Green, being recognized as one who had formerly been guilty of acts of piracy, was tried, condemned, and executed. The dispute respecting the succession was scarcely a more grievous matter of difterence. The Scotch parlia- ment delayed the " Act of Security" two whole sessions ; and when they did at length pass it in the thu'd session, they did so, adding a clause, providing that the successor to the throne shoidd not be king of both kingdoms. Their ob- ject in this was, to endeavour to drive England to terms in matters of trade. MISCELLANEA. 393 The English parliament resented this by an act (In the session of 1704) entitled an act "to prevent the mischief's arising to England from the act of security in Scotland ;" and thereupon proceeded to the extremities we have al- luded to. Powerful secret influences were set at Avork to corrupt the Scottish parliament, and the general poverty of the country gave these corrupting influences great advantage. We have had quite enough to disgust us in the details of the corruption of our own parliament, to incline us to delay on that of the Scottish legislature ; and therefore close the subject with simply repeating the historical fact, that the English artifices and designs were successful. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The fearful extent and pressure, tliis winter, (1846-7,) of Tiie^p>'esent the popular distress, should now eno;ross attention : even (i84o-7) en ■i i ' o forces cou- if its consideration did not involve so entirely, and, in fact, tJfe'^'evuJ' of render so imperative, the consideration of the evils which "^® U"^°°- have resulted from the Union, and of the nature of the re- medies to be applied to them. It is owing to the Union, that Ireland has been reduced to such a state, as that the failure of a single article of food has plunged her whole population into utter destitution. Other countries are suffering from the same failure : but in none of them has it occasioned the same misery ; because in none was there the same entire dependence upon the potato. Why did this dependence exist in Ireland 9 Assuredly not by reason of any depravity of taste. The Irish are, of course, sharers in the instinct which impels the human and the brute creation alike, to seek for the best food. Simply then, the forced economy of miserable poverty drove them down to the potato — as cheaper than other articles of sustenance ; and further still, down even to the worst species of the potato itself — that which has been known by the designation of the " lumijer." In other countries, the national resources are developed — friesliaTe"' the people are allowed to reap the profits of their labour-^ fauXcf '° the classes above them are compelled (or have induce- "^°"" 396 CONCLUDING REMARKS. ments) to fulfil, at least with average fidelity, their duties to the community. The consequence is, that the working classes have ordinarily in their hands the means of bettering their condition ; and that a casualty like the present, will have no worse effect than to narroAV for the time the circle of their little comforts. nme"^ '^"^ ^'^ Ireland the national resources are undeveloped and ■\viiy not? neglected — the people are left at the mercy of their land- lords, who deny them any profit from their toils — the classes above the people are not only not compelled to fulfil social duties, nor in any way encouraged so to do, but are actually encouraged, nay tempted, to neglect and abandon those duties. The ambitious man, the man of business, the man of plea- sure, alike have their goals and objects out of Ireland. The first, if he would seek that honourable distinction to which it is the right of every citizen to aspire in the service of the state, has no theatre for his efforts at home, since the taking away of the Irish Parliament. To England he must go, and in the English Parliament he must labour, making to himself friends and adherents amongst English- men. The man of business finds a poor and most limited market for his enterprize in this country — he must struggle, at a thousand disadvantages, with tlie long-established and widely connected English capitalist, if he attempt the home supply ; and in the foreign trade his only hope is when permitted to share as an humble partner or corres- pondent in the magnificent undertakings of the merchant princes of England. The man of pleasure speedily exchanges the thin and fading streets of a city that, like Venice, may be said to "die daily," for the rich attractions and numberless plea- sures and amusements of London, with its dazzling court and its glittering nobility. CONCLUDING REMAKKS. 397 Thus a very large proportion of the monied capital of Ireland, whether in rents or trade investments, is drained away ; and the drain re-acts upon its causes, by further di- minishing the inducements and the occupations Avhich, if there were a healthy circulation of money through this country, would spring vip to engage the owners of that capital to remain at home. Enterprize thus nipped in the bud — industry without its due scope, and without its due reward — nay, without safety for its commonest profits and returns : owing to the almost inevitable abuse of the unlimited powers the Union Parlia- ments have given to the impoverished landlords of this im- poverished country : — it Avas inevitable that the people should descend — in fact, they were driven doicn, to the very lowest point in the scale of existence. Driven to the potato because of inability to purchase better food, that inability of course prevents their purchasing a substitute for the potato, now that the latter has so utterly failed. In this emergency, forced and extreme measures have become necessary. What property is yet of value in the country is being heavily charged for the maintenance of the population. The state, too, has to step largely in to the rescue — j)^^"^^^^^'^^ ^^^ ^^^^ funds immediately ; and neces- sarily a large proportion in absolute and permanent gift. Passing, for the present, all other considerations with ha^ng The state to respect to this state of things, one reflection presses here — piwi'ie for namely, that while the state coffers are thus open to stay ciistrcsMhis the immediate ruin, we have a brief — a very brief and very moment to fleeting — but still a breathing place to look around us, and a better con- . . , . „ . t 1 • 1 1 dition of decide, if we can, upon the means by which to prevent the things, for [, ■, ihe future recurrence of the present emero'ency. js to be . . .... brought The problem here involved, difficult and intricate in itself, «*o"'- is rendered yet more complicated, and, at the same time, ^'^^ p^op'® more urgent, by the considerations that while we are medi- t^^t^e^j^'f^'^ 398 CONCLUDING REMARKS. gung ^Mifdi- toting and debating, the people will he getting accustomed **°°* to constant employment, good wages, and good food. The change must be total and sweeping indeed that shall ensure to them a continuance of these three : for it can never be supposed that they ■will quietly submit, after the present starvation is provided for, to return to any thing like their old condition of scanty and occasional employment — wages most insufficient — food wretched and precarious. toepr(> ^ What, then, are the measures proposed for this end ? dies?' ''^™^' 1st. — The Times — backed by the large amount of public Law'^°*''^ opinion in England, which that paper is known to repre- sent — advocates — clamorously, violently, and with its usual tone of insult and contempt for Irish opinion — "an extended system of Poor Laws." cramTnJnoi 2^^^* — '^^^^ Whig Govcmment is understood to consider waste lands, ^j^g reclamation of Irish Waste Lands as an efficient re- medy ; and the Conservatives are apparently disposed to acquiesce in the experiment. As to the In the foregoing, are comprised all the suggestions that have come from those having influence, direct or indirect, over the management of our affairs. Our own plan of remedy is the Repeal. See sketcii Appended to this article is a brief historical sketch of of English ■'■'•. Poor Laws, Poor Laws in En crland : — which certainly will not be found p. 405. . *= . "^ to contain much to recommend their permanent and ex- tended adoption in Ireland. Referring to that sketch for the arguments that experience supplies against Poor Laws^ we shall notice here only a few obvious points of objection, which must suggest themselves to the least informed thinker. wTiere IVTieve is the money to come from to maintain an " ex- •would we > r\ T-T get mo- tended system of Poor Laws?' Our present limited sys- ney for an , "^ , '' extended tcm is found iBost cxpcnsivc. The cost of " machinerxi system ? ^ ^ ^ alone" absorbs not very far from one-half of the entire ex- penditure. And yet the machinery is of course more likely CONCLUDING REMAIIKS. 399 to be economically managed under the present Workhouse system of relief, than under a system of combined Out and In-door Relief. That Poor Laws create money in a country, no one pre- tends. They therefore deal only with the money already in hands — redistributing it^ with great and inevitable waste by the way. But it is said by some theorists, (uninformed of England's ^i t'le 43id •J ' ^ O of Elizabeth bitter exiierience of her Poor LaAvs, under Avhatever shape ^' ^^ a good ••■ ' •■ act, why tried,) that the law of Elizabeth which ordered the paupers '^^^^l ^°^ to be " set on work" ought to be established in this coun- ^"g'l"'^ ' try ; and that the profits of their labour would greatly supply for the cost of their maintenance. To this there are two answers. First, that England would not have foregone this law herself, if its operation had really been beneficial. Second, — That the moment a pauper's labour becomes Pauper must ■'•■'■ not be a n- re-productive, he is established as a rivals in the labour Jn^JViIdeut market, to the independent labourer or workman. The ''*'^°^'''^r. latter therefore has actually to contribute, by the payment of his OAvn share of the rates, to the maintenance of a rival who narroAvs and perchance annihilates his own profits. One general reflection may be made on this subject — that poor Laws the certainty of a house of refuge in old age, sickness, or des- frapTOW?^ titution brought on by misconduct — must inevitably Aveaken weaken the spirit of provident industry and careful economy in the working man's mind ; and especially so in a country like this, where it requires his utmost and most painful efforts to procure a miserable subsistence. The facility, too, of getting rid of aged, sick, or otherwise destitute relatives, is a fearful temptation to the violation or non-regard of filial and family duties. We conclude our brief comment upon the Times' nostrum impossible ■■■ to reduce for Ireland, of "Extended Poor Laws," Avith this remark : — *'"= ^"^'> 400 CONCLUDING REMARKS. anySe" ^^^* *^^ Ordinary poverty ol" the labouring classes in Ireland, ^^emlvl "°* is SO pinching, that it is not easy to imagine any treatment th™/that^of of paupers in a Avorkhouse, or otherwise, which shall not pendTnt la- uiakc their condition better, in point of jyhysical comforts, bouier. than that of the independent workman or labourer ; and thereby dangerously increase the temptation to the latter to abandon all struggle, and throw himself and his family upon the parish-rates. That this has^not already occurred is owing simply to the " limitations complained of by tlie Times" and the other Poor Law advocates, in the ex- isting law, which, in cases where relief is given, re- strict it to residents in the Avorkhouse. Once increase the facilities of claiming relief, and sup- ply it to people residing in their own homes, and for one who noAV applies, a hundred and a thousand Avill then be found. And the innumerable frauds AAdiich it has been found impossible to check, under any system of out-door relief, in England, Avill add their weight to the intolerable burthen thus created, to break doAvn utterly and entirely the spirit of industry, providence, and independence amongst the impoverished millions of Ireland. Second plan, We uoAV comc to the sccoud remedial plan proposed — viz., of waste that of the reclamation of the Avaste lands of Ireland ; and location upon them of the destitute and unemployed. No one disputes that Avhich the reports of several Government Commissioners and Parliamentai'y Committees assert, namely, the great facilities which exist in Ireland, for the essaying of this proposed remedy. The Irish waste lands, especially the bog lands, are peculiarly reclaimable ; and Avherever indlA'idual enterprise has been properly ap- plied to them, it has found an ample return. But as a general measure for relief of the distressed popu- lation of Ireland the folloAving leading objects suggest themselves at once : — lands. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 401 J^li-st — The slowness of the remedy. Somethins: of im- too slow a , remedy. mediate application is wanting : for penshmg men cannot wait. The annual increase of population would outstrip the Sl'^out- quickest process of land reclamation. - stnpit. Second — The derangement of industry throughout the The new o JO Inmls would country. Every man who had, or fancied he had, (and ■'^"''i^^'j^^'^he many Avho neither had, nor fancied it,) any reason for dis- "}fg'p^"e'^jj^i!f'' content Avith his present position, would turn his eyes to- si'^'^o". Avards the state reclamations, and propose to himself to seek his fortune, as it were, by tendering himself for loca- tion on the ground newly brought in. Third — A very large number of those who Avould other- Avise supply the annual tide of emigration, Avould remain at home, Avith the A'iew of getting holdings on these lands. The Irish emigrant is known to be more attached to the native soil, than the emigrant of any other country ; and not only Avill those who otherwise contemplated emigration, stay at home to compete for the ncAV lands, but many who have not succeeded well in America, will be induced to come back with the same object. Fourth — An extensive, complicated, and particular code Their man- ni '11 1 • T 11 • aitement of laAvs Avnl be indispensable to keep the reclaimed lands in ^^o"''! be I'l 11 • intricate, the small lots which are contemplated : and which are ne- vexatious, . , ■*■ and costly. cessary, if the plan is to lighten the pressure upon the land noAV in cultivation, and to ameliorate the condition of the agricultural population generally. English public speakers and writers are continually deploring the tendency Avhich property has in England to get into large masses ; and if this tendency exist in England, despite the better means of the loAver orders to take and retain land, how much greater is it not in Ireland, Avhere there is such Avretched poverty. The cottier system Avill, in fact, be but extended, not Their results remedied ; and the dangerous precedent of state inter- rnoxtension ference, on an extended scale, with the rights of private eviis. 2d 402 CONCLUDING REMARKS. owners will have been established with much intricacy of legislation and arrangement, and without any permanent, and very little, if any, temporary remedy, for the agrarian evils of Ireland's condition. Reclamation We are not to be understood by any means as decrying lands is only the reclamation of waste lands, where undertaken in the efficient ■, . . „ ... . whore done legitimate coursc 01 enterprize, by private parties ; or even by private r^ . •iiii n enterpme. whcrc tried Oil a partial scale by the government lor a par- ticular purpose, whether of experiment or otherwise. The benefits of adding to the cultivable land of a country are too obvious to be disputed as an abstract proposition. But we say, and maintain, that as a great state expedient, where- by generally, or to any large extent, the condition of a whole people is expected to be changed for the better, it would miserably disappoint its projectors ; and miserably and most dangerously disappoint the expectations of those it was in- tended to benefit. Condemning then the two plans we have been speaking of — tlie first, as any remedy at all, and the second in its alleged quality as a general and permanent remedy, the duty is upon us to enunciate our remedy. The only We look to Something that shall naturally stimulate the '' EEPE^^i'!" industry and enterprize of the country, and call out her re- sources. We look to what shall check the deranging and ruinous drain of money from her, and cause a healthy and active circulation of that vital fluid of the body politic. We look to what shall give rich customers at home, to the artizan and agricultural population, for their goods and their produce — and finally shall ensure to these, and to all other interests in Ireland, the long lost advantage of the wise care and overseeing of a home legislature, able and willing to devote its time and attention to those interests, and possessed of full, accurate, and minute information re- specting their condition and requirements. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 403 It would be but re-writing what we have embodied in various parts of this work abeady, were we to delay to show how directly each and every one of these benefits to Ire- land would result speedily and necessarily from the Repeal of the Union. We therefore have discharged ourselves of the onus of enunciating a large, permanent, and entirely efficacious re- medy for the perennial wretchedness of Ireland ; and those who would dispute the efficiency and propriety of our re- medy, incur that obligation themselves. Up to this time certainly, neither English writer nor speaker has attempted to discharge it ; and the period for cool discussion is slipping with fatal rapidity away. 2 D 2 SKETCH or THE HISTORY OF POOR LiWS IN ENGLAND. "Legislation for the Poor" in England, beffan in no EngUsUpoor , ^ laws origi- kindly feelm";s towards them. The English Poor En-natedina , , . repressive quiry Commissioners of 1833, state in their report, that ?"«' »esti-ict- i- '' ' i -" ive spirit " the great object of early i^auper legislation seems to have towanistiie t5 " »' 1 1 o people. been the repression of vagrancy." The feudal lords sought to restrain their vassals from flying to corporate towns to escape their thraldom, and find protection under the muni- cipal privileges. To remedy this, the " statute of labour- ers" was passed in 1 35 1 . By it not only the personal liberty of the agricultural population was put under severe restraints, but their icages were sought to be definitively settled and fixed. In the years 1376 and 1378, complaints were renewed in parlia- ment, of the escape of vassals, and their finding protection in corporate towns, and this, notwithstanding several acts of Edward the Third, by which it was vainly endeavoured to enforce the statute of labourers. This iniquitous sta- 406 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. tute was found, like all such, quite inoperative for the end for which it was intended ; but at the same time copiously productive of misery to the wretched people. The reign of Eichard the Second, and the succeeding reigns, present a long list of acts more or less restrictive of personal liberty, and more or less interfering with in- dustry. The natural consequence of this unholy crusade of the rich against the poor followed — the lower classes, met at every step by searching and grinding tyranny, either gave up, or were forced greatly to relax, their exer- tions for subsistence, and the land was crowded with the destitute and the discontented. Then the harsh and des- potic spirit which dictated these ruinous restrictions, got full scope, and vagrancy was punished by laws of which it has been well said, that, " with the single exception of scalping^ they equalled the worst atrocities ever practised by the North American Indians upon their prisoners."* Lashing " until the body be bloody" — boring, with a hot iron " the compass of an inch through the gristle of the ear" — branding " in the face, and on the shoulder" — "crop- ping the ears" — " chaining" — " slavery for two years," and, in case of attempts to escape, " slavery for life" — and "death as a felon" — these were the mild and paternal vaeihodiS of treating the poorer classes, that marked the earlier history of poor laws ; and that indeed continued, with not very extensive modifications, to be used until not a very remote period from our own time. The poor Under this cruel regime the only friends the poor man ported by^ had, wcrc the religious in the monasteries, convents, and orderl!^'°"\bbeys ; where abundant charity was freely given them. The commissioners whom the rapacious Henry the 8tli appointed to enquire into the state of these establishments, • Sir F. M. Eden's History of the Poor, Vol. I. rOOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. 407 sent liim with their report an earnest recommendation tliat the subjects of their enquiries should not be dissolved, because of tlie good they did the poor ; and when subse- quently a bill was brought into parliament for their disso- lution, it contained a promise that their revenues should continue to be devoted to purposes of charity. But this promise was at once broken, when the end for which it was made was attained ; and the great fountains of charity being thus sealed up, private benevolence, in the wretched state of the industrial enterprize of England at that period, was insufficient to meet the calls upon it, and so charity " hy act of ■parliament" began. The following is a brief summary of the nature and pro- Poor i-a^vs ^ . . . -^ a bad substi- gress of the legislation in this respect. 27 Henry VIII, tut? for c. 25, (1536,) recites a previous act, assigning a limit charity. within which to beg — and adds, that no provision is made for the support of the impotent, nor for setting and keeping on work able-bodied beggars. It enacts that the head officers of every city, town, shire, and parish, shall attend to these two matters, under a penalty of 20^. a month on each defaulting parish. Voluntary alms to be collected by them for these purposes ; and the clergy are to incite their flocks to charity. Alms-giving, other than contributions to the parish com- 2-, Henry 2, mon box, is forbidden under forfeiture of ten times the amount. A stm'dy beggar to be whipped the first time, his right ear cropped the second time, and on conviction of a third offence, to be put to death as a felon and an enemy of the commonwealth . The 1st Edward VI. c. 3, (154T,) recites that "partly by foolish pity and mercy of them which should have seen the aforesaid goodly laws executed, and partly from the perverse natiue and long accustomed idleness of the 408 POOR LAAVS IN ENGLAND. persons given to loitering, the said goodly statutes have had small elFect, and idle and vagabond persons, being unprofitable members, or rather enemies of the common- wealth, have been suffered to remain and increase, and yet so do." It therefore enacts that able bodied persons who do not apply to honest labour, or offer to serve even for meat and drink, shall be branded with the letter V. on the shoulder, and be adjudged a slave for two years, to any per- son who shall demand him ; and shall be fed on bread and water, and kept to work by beating, chaining, &c., &c. RunaAvays to be made slaves for life, and to be further branded on the cheek — and where incorrigible, to suffer death. There were modifications and alterations of this statute of various kinds until 1515, when the 5tli and 6th Edward VI., c. 2, was passed, afterwards repeated verbatim by the 2nd and 3rd Philip and Mary, c. 5, (1555,) preserving all the chaining and beating provisions ; and enacting that cer- tain collectors should, on the Sunday after Whitsuntide, " gently ask every man and woman" what they of their charity " would give weekly to the poor" — and should dis- tribute the weekly collections "after such sort that the more impotent may have the more help, and such as can get part of their living less, and be put on such labour as they can do, but none openly to beg" — under the old penalties. Any one refusing to give such alms, is to be " gently exhorted^' first by the ministers and churcliAvardens — and if refractory, to be then " sent for" by the bishop, Avho is to take order for his reformation." The 5th Elizabeth, c. 3, (1563,) gives the bishop power to send him before the magistrates, who are first to exhort — and faihng that, to tax him, according to their good " dis- cretion." rOOll LAWS IN ENGLAND. 409 The commissioners quote the next statute, 14th Eliza- beth, c. 5, (1572,) " as a proof of the inefficacy of former statutes, and as showing how short an interval elapsed" between the giving power to tax a chance individual, and the general taxing power that has since subsisted. Its preamble gives a frightful picture of the increase of pauperism, and the savage spirit of the legislation against it ; and the statute itself re-enacts and confirms all the former severities. It provides the general taxing power before mentioned, at the "good discretion of the justices'" — the latter also to apportion the relief, and to set the able-bodied paupers upon Avork. Passing some minor statutes repeating and confirming others, we come to the much-talked-of 43rd Elizabeth, c. 2, (IGOl.) It provided- Overseers of the poor to *' raise, by taxation of every in- habitant, &c. &c., in their |3arishes, a convenient stock of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, and other necessary ware, and stuff, to set the poor on work — and also, competent sums for necessary relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other among them, being poor and not able to work, and also for the putting out of apprentices," &c. &c. &c. Severe penalties against defaulters — " Section VII. The father, grandfather, mother, grandmo- ther, and children of every poor, old, blind, lame, and impotent person, being of sufficient ability, shall, of their own charges, relieve and maintain every such person, in such manner, and at such rate, as by the said justices shall be assessed." Such was the substance of the so much vaunted act, the 43rd of Elizabeth, c. 2: a casual circumstance, men- tioned in the following extract from a writer already quoted, (Avhose work on poor laws is of high authority,) gave the act in question a popularity it by no means merited of itself. 410 POOR LAAVS IN ENGLAND. " In the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, various ex- pedients ,>ere proposed in both houses, for employing and pro- viding for the poor ; but among the many debates on this sub- ject, no speaker properly noticed the principal cause of the dis- tress of the labouring classes at the close of the sixteenth cen- tury — an uninterrupted succession of bad weather and scanty crops for several yeai's. In 1601, however, the season was more favourable ; and many short-sighted politicians thought the wisdom of the legislature had done what was solely aseriba- ble to the benign operations of nature." (^Sir Fred. Morton Ede7i, vol. 1, p. 135,) The delusion, was speedily dispelled. Elizabeth's succes- sor, James, in his first speech from* the throne, had to echo the nation's complaints against all that had yet been done relative to poor relief, including the 43rd of Elizabeth itseli'. A statute of his reign, the 7th Jac. I, c. 4, passed in 1609, repeated the same complaints ; and declared that the poor laws had " operated as a premium upon idleness." In the 6th year of the reign of Charles the 1st, (1630,) we find a proclamation, enjoining upon the lieges the prac- tice of fasting and abstaining — (in some such sort as in the old Catholic times) — any saving thus effected in house- hold expenses, to be employed in " feeding the poor." The remainder of his reign, and that of Cromwell, were too much distracted by internal troubles, and afterwards by foreign wars, to admit of much attention to the poor. But when Charles the 2nd was seated upon the throne, the tinkering upon the yet unsuccessful poor laws began again. Statute the 13th and 14th Car. 2, chap. 12, (a.d. 1662,) was the first. It's preamble was thus worded : — *' Whereas the necessity, number, and continual increase of the poor through the whole kingdom, is very great and exceed- ing burthensome ; and that poor people are not restrained from going from one parish to another, and therefore do endeavour to settle where there is the best stock, the largest commons to POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. 411 build cottages, and the most woods to burn ; and when they have consumed it, then go to another parish, and at last become rogues and vagabonds, to the great discouragement of parishes to provide stock where liable to be devoured by strangers, &c., &c." It went on to enact, as a remedy, the noted " law of settlement" — providing that " wanderers be sent back to their own parish" — no man to leave the same to seek work elsewhere, without a certificate of settlement — giving notice to the overseers of the parish to which he came, and also security not to be burthensome to that parish. The inevitable tyranny of all poor laAV systems peeps out pretty plainly in the foregoing, restricting, as it did, the poor man in seeking the best market for his labour. James the 2nd's reign passed over with but a fevv^ altera- tions in the provisions of the foregoing act for obtaining a parish settlement. The alterations, hoAvever, were of a more unfavourable character to the poor man. creating more difficulties in his way. Of the same tendency were two or three statutes of William III. The last of them, however, the 8th and 9th, William III., c. 30, had to enact some restriction on the power of sending back the poor wanderer, by giving him the right to remain in his new parish, (giving the notice and security before stated,) until he became actually chargeable therein. This small relaxation was, hoAvever, inefficacious for nearly a century after, for want of some means to compel the overseer of his own parish to give him the certificate required, and it was not till 1795, that the 35th George III., c. 101, dis- pensed with the latter. The " settlement" laws, like every other branch of the poor law code, inflicted injury on society as well as on the individual, interfering with, and deranging, a free supply to the labour-market. It also has caused enormous sums to 412 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. be Avasted in litigation between parishes disputing settle- ments of paupers, and in the conveyance and transference of the latter from one parish to another. William III., in a speech from the throne, in 1699, bore testimony to the general faiku'e of the poor laAvs up to that time. An early act of his reign, the 3rd AVilliam and Mary, cap. 11, thus noticed a particular failure : " Whereas, many inconveniencies do daily arise by rea- son of the unlimited power of the overseers, who do fre- quently, on frivolous pretences, but chiefly for their own private ends, give relief to what persons and number they think fit ;" and proposed to cure it by prohibiting relief, " except by authority, under the hand of one justice of the peace, or order of the justices in quarter sessions." The 9th of George I., cap. 7, (1722,) shoAvs that the foregoing act failed in its turn. " Whereas, iiniler colour of the 3rcl and 4tli William and Mary, many have applied to justice without knoAvledge of the parish officers ; and thereby, upon vmtrue suggestions and frivolous pretences, have obtained relief, which hath greatly in- creased the parish rates." Then followed a provision requiring applicants to show a " reasonable ground for relief," and the latter not to be given till the overseers had been summoned to shew cause why not. This Avas, however, found to be inefficacious in its turn — the justice ordering relief at their own discretion, after complying Avith the letter of the ncAV laAV. This may be the place to introduce testimony as to the Avorking of the poor laAvs in all and CA'ery shape tried — testimony from names noted in the literary annals of England. In a pamphlet attributed to Sir MatthcAV Hale, and pub- lished in 1659, it is remarked of the provision of the 43rd I'OOK LAWS IN ENGLAND. 413 of Elizabeth, ibr " a stock of flax, avooI, &c." to be laid in " to set the poor on Avork," that — " The stocks of goods were not provided, hecause people pre- ferred paying annually to laying down a heavy sum on a chance." In 1669, Sir Joshua Child, in his " New Discourse on Trade," complained of " the sad and wretched condition of the poor," attributing it to the radical error in poor laws. He anticipated the objection that their defects were from " bad execution of those laws," by saying : " there never was a good laAv made that yvas not well executed — the faults of a law ensure its failure." Clarendon, De Foe, and Locke, also added their testi- mony to the failure. The latter wrote thus in 1696 : — " The multiplying of th^ poor, and the increase of the tax for their maintenance is so general an observation and com- plaint, that it cannot be doubted of. It has been a growing burthen these many years. It has not proceeded from scarcity of provisions nor want of employment — since God has blessed these times with plenty, not less than the former." In 1699, Dr. Davenant in his " Essay on Trade," re- corded that the " rates were SAvelled to an extreme de- gree." In 1735 a Committee of the House of Commons thus reported : — "Resolved — That it is the opinion of this committee that the laws relating to the maintenance of the poor are defective ; and notwithstanding they impose heavy burthens, yet the poor are ill taken care of. " That the laws relating to settlement and concerning- vagrants, are very difficult to be executed, and chargeable in their execution — vexatious to the poor, and of little advantage to the public, and ineffectual to promote the good ends for which they were intended." 414 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. Fielding, writing in the year 1753, thus speaks on the same subject : — " That the poor are a very great burthen, and even a nuisance to this kingdom ; that the laws for relieving their distress, &c., have not answered their purposes, are truths which every man will acknowledge ; such have been the unanimous complaints of all writers from the days of Queen Elizabeth down ; such is the sense of the legislature, and such is the universal voice of the nation !" We need not delay with other testimonies of the conti- nued evil working of the poor laws up to 1833-34, when we have the report of the Commission of Poor Enquiry of that date, and the parliamentary debates before us. It is sufficient to say that the tinkering went on, with how little success is, of course, evident from the sweeping changes advocated and carried into effect in the last year mentioned. The following is the testimony to failure borne by the prime minister, Lord Althorp, in the House of Commons, April 17, 1834:— " For many years complaints had been made as to the mode in which the administration of the poor laws had affected every class, more immediately connected with, or in- terested in the soil — the landed proprietors, the farmers, and the poor themselves ; they found that the administration of the poor laws had been injurious in its operation to every one of those classes ; tut, most of all, it had been injurious to the labouring classes themselves " He was ready to admit, that having experienced the failure of so many attempts of the legislature to remedy the defects and abuses of the poor laws, he had not been san- guine that any legislative attempt which he might make would be more successful "He would now assert, and he would appeal to the facts detailed in the report of the Commissioners for the confirmation of what he stated, that the effect of the poor laws tended directly — he meant to say, that the present adminis- POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. 415 tration of the poor laws tended directly — to the destruction of all property in the country. It had been said, that this would lead to an agrarian law — it would lead to worse than that. An agrarian law was the division of property ; but the present state of the poor laws in this country tended to the destruction of all property. He could not conceive any thing more fatal to the very class for whose benefit those laws had been enacted, than to allow them to go on in their present destructive course, without an attempt on the part of the legislature to put a check on them "The effect of the law of the 26th Geo. III., c 23, was to give the magistrates the power of ordering relief to be given to the poor in their own dwellings. That had been followed up by the magistrates acting upon the same principle, which was so consistent with every good feeling of human natui'e, that it was impossible to blame them ; and yet it was a great mistake, though originating, undoubtedly, as he had already said, in the best feelings that animate mankind. The consequence of it had been to lead from bad to worse. All feelings of independence on the part of the labourers had been almost entirely extinguished in many parts of the country, and the result had been, that instead of placing the paupers in a state of comfort, all the labouring population in many districts of the country had been reduced to a state of deplorable misery and distress." The noble lord who made these statements was compli- mented from every side of the house for their accuracy and strength. The Commissioners' Report (of 1834) should be read, in order to see how fully and sweepingly they condemned the then state of things. A few quotations from the In- dex to that Report will shew as much of its tenor as we have room for here. " Poor Laws — Have dispensed with prudence and foresight — repeal the law of nature — generate idleness, improvidence, and waste — make the opposite virtues to be the source of loss to labourers." — (pp. 58, 77.) "Rates — Rapid increase of — will swallow up rent — land thrown out of cultivation by their pressure — ratepayers are 416 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. called on, when they have neither provisions nor money them- selves," — (pp. 64, 66.) " Pauperism — Progressively increasing." " Overseers — Their office made an instrument of jobbing — they grant relief under intimidation, &c., favouritism," &c. — (pp. 101-4.) " Labourers — Refuse employment from individuals, depend- ing on getting parish allowance — their discontent proportioned to the amount spent on them — degradation of the unemployed — recklessness of those receiving relief," &c., &c., &c. — (pp. 50, 71.) " Allowance System — Deteriorates and degrades labour- ers — destroys domestic affection and ties of relationship — . once introduced, pauperizes whole parishes." — (pp. 68, 97.) *' Out-door Relief — Demanded with insolence as a right — is obtained by persons able to support themselves — degrades the receivers — though barely sufficient for support, is preferred to more pay with labour." Such are a few of the most p^'ominent headings in this index of poor law failures. Has the system which these commissioners recommended to replace the old, been more successful? Before us, at this moment, is a laboured article, in the November number of Blackwood's Magazine, " on the operation of English Poor Laws," in which we find the following : " An enquiry must be instituted — conducted in a sober spirit and without reference to theories. The question is, what REMEDIAL MEASURES, ov improvement can be adopted in the administration of the English poor laws ! ! !" So, after upwards of 300 years tinkering^ and after 12 years experience of the last great and sweeping change, " remedial measures and improvements" are still to seek ! The Edinburgh Review for October, 1846, is also before us ; and the following is fi-om an article in it, entitled, " Proposals for extending the Irish Poor Law." rOOIl LAWS IN ENGLAND. 4ir " Above all, wo hope England will not impose on Ireland in- stitutions, of which the utility is questionable Among the English laws from which Ireland is yet in a great measure free, there is one of which both the good and the evil are enormous. Such are its powers of mischief, that it threatened, not twelve years ago, to destroy the industry of the most laborious, the wealth of the richest, and the morality of the most civilized nation in Europe^ Our readers are of course aware, that we allude to the English poor law." "The last remark we make on the proposals for ex- tending the Irish poor law is, that so far as they are supported by a reference to the assumed success of the English poor law, they are founded on an assumption which may be premature. The evils of the unamended law were most fatal — no less than the ruin of proprietors, and the corruption of the occupiers and cul- tivators of the soil. The mischief went on steadily increasing ; government after government tried vain expedients, or looked on in inactive despair. At length the almost despotic power given Lord Grey's government by the first reformed parlia- ment enabled it to apply a partial remedy. The Poor Law Amendment Bill was passed, and the plague was stayed, but not eradicated." The article goes on to show by the increasing amount of rates, that the partial remedy is now failing in its tm'n. " The following are the sums expended for the poor, from Lady Day, 1836, when the amended law may be said to have come into full operation, until the last return. 1837 £4,044,741 1840 4,576,965 1842 4,911,498 1845 5,039,703 N.B These figures are exclusive of the expenditure out of the rates for law charges, removals, county rates, and all other purposes. " It will be seen that during a period, not merely of pro- found tranquillity, but of prosperity, the expenditure has gone on increasing, until in eight years, it has risen nearly 25 per cent. If its advance be not checked, it must in time eat away the whole rental..., We trust we shall escape this, as we have escaped other perils which seemed scarcely avoidable : but we must say, that of all the dangers to which we are ex- posed, those connected with the poor law, are the most threaten- ing. Scotland and Ireland are bound to study the experience of England) not as an incentive, but as a warning." 2 E 418 rOOR LAWS IN ENGLAND. How Poor Laws h ive worked in Ireland. The London weekly newspaper, the Spectator^ is at present giving a series of excellent letters of the same tenor, with regard to what is called the "amended poor law." We thus have the leading periodicals, representing the three parties in the state, the Tory, the Whig, and the Radi- cal, alike holding out a warning to us, not to involve our- selves further with the poor laws; and we have the chain of testimony complete down to our own time, of the failure of every system of poor laAvs that has been tried in that country during the whole period that they have existed. In foreign countries, there have been partial successes of partial systems ; but no general and generally successful effort upon a large scale. A certain facility and regularity of working is obtained by the pressure of the screws of despotism — by the use of all the arbitrary and vexatious powers of interference in all the details of social life, with which despotism endues its myriad of inferior agents. How has the limited system of poor laws actually exist- ing in Ireland, been found to work ? In the first place, no one pretends that it has diminished the number of beggars in the smallest perceptible degree, notwithstanding the immense sums which it draws from the rate-payers. In the second place, an enormously large disproportion of the monies so levied, is spent on the mere machinery/, as it is generally styled, of the poor law, viz. : in paying the officers of the workhouses, costs of working, &c., &c. And this, Avhen the originators of the law declared, that it would actually save money to the country, by doing away with the practice among the people of giving relief in kind, as in a small quantity of potatoes, of meal, &c., to beggars^! In connexion with the matter last mentioned, it is to|;be remarked, that another effect of the poor law as it exists rOOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 419 in Ireland, is, that the charitable man is douhly taxed — first, by the rate — Avhich he is compelled to pay, and therefore does by no means consider as any discharge of the religious obligation to give charity ; and second, by his conscientious sense of that obligation. Until the Catholic religion is eradicated out of the liearts of the Irish people, they will continue to obey its precepts ; and, in especial, the truly divine precept of charity. The last report of the Poor Law Commissioners gives the following : {Appendix, pp. 132, 136.) Thus the salaries, &c. of the " officers'' of the establish- ment consumed an amount of rate equal to one-half that required for the support and clothing of the paupers ! The rest of the money, viz. £42,034, was wasted in " re- payments on workhouse loan, valuation, collection, and election expenses, laAV suits, &c. &c. It Avill be seen too that the proportion consumed l)y the salaries, &c. increased in the second half year in a much greater proportion. 2 E 2 420 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND, Another account, at pages 144, 145, of the same appen- dix to the report, gives the statement of expenditure, for the complete year 1845, (from \st January to ^\st De- cember, inclusive^ as £316,206. Workhouses Open. NUMBER OF PAUPERS In the Work- houses on 1st January, 1845. Relieved during the Year. In the Work- houses, on 1st January, 1846. 123 39,540 74,665 42,068 There is no statement of the charges of the establish- ment for the complete year ; but, as, in our first table, the increase of four workhouses alone, increased those charges on the half year by £6,000, the increase of thirteen work- houses up to the 31st December, gives us a fair ground for saying, that, after due deduction for the portion of the year 1844, included in the first table, the establishment charges for the whole year 1845, must have approached the sum of, at the least, £100,000. Reference again to the first table will shew, that the amount of money spent in actual relief, by no means in- creased in the same proportion, as that spent on " estab- lishment charges" — the increase on the second half year, vmder the latter, having l)een £7,000, while under the former but £3,500 ; that is to say, not more than one half. Judging then by this data, as it appears the " charges of the establishment, for the complete year 1845, were greater than those for the twelve months ending September, 1845, by £20,000, the sums expended for relief must have been greater only by £10,000. The account then will stand thus : — POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 421 (From \st January to 3\st December, 1845, inclusive.) Total of Expenditure. Relief of the Poor. Charges of Establishment. Other Expenses, as Law Expen- ces. Valuation, Collection, and Election Do. £316,206 £90,000 £100,000 £126,206 We have seen that the inevitable tendency of the poor laws in England has been to increase continually in cost ; and our own brief experience of them in Ireland is to the same effect. And yet there are some, even in Ireland, calling out for an extension of those laws in this country ! " Out-door relief" is the grand panacea, accoi'ding to these parties, for Irish distress. This relief to be partial in some cases — viz., those of the able-bodied, temporarily out of employment ; and constant in others, as to the aged, weak, infirm, &c. &c. The advocates of " out-door" relief see clearly enough, and generally will be found ready enough to join us in de- nouncing the workhouse system — for much such reasons as the folloAving : — The impossibility of a workhouse system sufficiently extensive to relieve all the paupers in Ireland The imprisonment which that system involves necessarily and indispensably. — The unnatural separation of hus- band and wife, and of families. — The temptations to proselytism, and occasions for religious bickerings The enormous expense of the " staff" of the workhouse. — The jumbling together of persons of good life and character with the offscourings of the streets, and the consequent danger of corruption to the former — a danger fearful in 422 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. the cases of females and children. — The bringing up of multitudes of young people in seclusion from the com- munity at large, and in utter disconnection with it. But many who recognize and acknowledge these evil in- cidents of the workhouse system, are not by any means so ready to admit the equally potent and undeniable evils of a system of " out-door" relief. Among these evils the first is '^^ fraud" on the part of the object of out-door relief. Cases have been innumer- able in England where applicants received relief from three - or four different parishes, under pretence of belonging to each ; and where they contrived to work at their trades and make profit at the very time they were receiving parish pay, on account of alleged inability to do any thing towards their own support. That the extremest vigilance cannot prevent frauds, is established by the evidence of Mr. Tidd Pratt, the bar- rister appointed to revise and control the rules of benefit societies, in which the immediate interest of the contribu- tors requires and ensures such vigilance, in a degree that mere officials employed by poor law authorities for the purpose, cannot be expected In any case to excel, and only in rare and particular cases {if ever) to equal. (From the Poor Law Commissioners^ Report, 1 834, Chap. " Remedial Measures." ) '* On this point (out-door relief) as on many others, the in- dependent labourers may be our best teachers. In the admin- istration of the funds of their friendly societies, they have long acted on the principle of rendering the condition of a person receiving their relief, less eligible than that of an independent labourer. They also enforce most unrelentingly the principle, that under no circumstances shall any member of their socie- ties receive relief while earning any thing for himself. Mr. Tidd Pratt was asked whether, in the rules for the management of friendly societies, framed by the labouring classes themselves, POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 423 he had ever found any for the allowance of partial relief; such as in aid of wages, or relief on account of the number of a family ?" — " No, never." " Then, do the labouring classes themselves, in the rules sub- mitted to you, reject all partial relief, or relief on any other ground than the utter inability to work ? — Invariably. " By what penalties do they endeavour to secure themselves from fraud, on the part of persons continuing on the sick list after they have become able to work ? — In all cases by utter ex- pulsion, and enforcement of the repayment of the money from the period at which it was proved the party was able to work. They are perfectly well aware, from experience, that to give relief in an apparently hard case, would open the door to a whole class of cases, which would ruin them. The other day the steward of a friendly society came to consult me as to the reinstatement of a member, who had been expelled for having neglected to pay his quartei-'s subscription on the regidar quarter night, half an hour after the books were closed. The party had been a member thirty-two years, and during that time had received little or no relief. The case struck me as extremely hard ; and I endeavoured to prevail on the steward to rein- state the member ; but the steward stated to me so many facts, shewing that if they yielded to this one, it would deter- mine a whole class of cases, and let in so much abuse, that I was ultimately forced to agree In the necessity of the decision." ^^ Although there is an extremely severe enforcement of them, (rules,) societies are seriously ixjuked, and fre- quently KUINED, BY THE FRAUDS COMMITTED UNDER THIS MODE OF RELIEF, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXCESSIVE VIGI- LANCE EXERCISED AGAINST THEM." "What description of vigilance is that? — It is provided by the rules, that a domiciliary visit shall be paid by the stewards or by a member, generally every day ; these visits to be paid at uncertain times, that they may increase the chances of de- tection. It is also provided that a sick member shall not leave his house before or after such an hour, and that on his leaving home at other times he shall leave word in writing where he has gone, by what line of road he has gone and intends to return, in order that the stewards or members may track him. In some instances the members fol- low up these pi'ecautlons by requiring a member, when he ' de- clares off' the box, to swear that he was unable to work during the whole time that he has been receiving- relief." 424 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. " Are these precautions effectual ? — No ; notwithstand- ing THE UTMOST VIGILANCE, SERIOUS FRAUDS ARE COMMITTED, especially by the members of those trades who can woi'k at piece-work within doors ; such, for example, as tailors, shoe- makers, watchmakers, and weavers. An operative of these trades keeps his door shut, and works, and when the visitor comes, the work is put under the bed-clothes, or otherwise concealed, and he is found in bed apparently sick." We should stretch this article (abeady too long) beyond all reasonable limits, were we to give even a small portion of the other convincing evidences that are on record as to the impossibility of sufficient vigilance to prevent frauds. One paragi'aph more, however, may be quoted from the report of 1834 : — " That where the administration of relief is brought nearer to the door of the pauper, little advantage arises from increased knowledge on the part of the distributors, and great evil from their increased liability to every sort of pernicious injluence. It brings tradesmen within the influence of their customers, small farmers within that of their relations and connexions, and not unfrequently of those who have been their fellow work- men, and exposes the wealthier classes to solicitations from their own dependants for extra allowances, which might be merito- riously and usefully given as private charity, but are abuses when forced from the public. Under such circumstances, to continue out-door relief is to continue a relief which will gene- rally be given ignorantly or corruptly, frequently procured by fraud, and in a large and rapidly increasing proportion of cases extorted by intimidation — an intimidation which is not more powerful as a source of profusion than as an obstacle to improvement." But it will be said, that notwithstanding the foregoing and other denunciations, the Poor Law Commissioners have found it impossible to do away with the practice of out-door relief. To this the answer is short and direct. They have so been unable certainly ; but it is because the English people had become too accustomed to the practice rOOR LAAVS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 425 to admit of its being abrogated, and hence mainly the rapid increase of the sum levied as rates after the first year of the new law, when the attempt was made to check, with a view finally to do away with, out-door relief. In fact, this is but an additional reason for us not to allow our- selves to be involved in the same manner. The following remarks are from the Poor Law Com- mission Report for 1839 : — " As soon as a man gets out-door relief, his maximum of earnings is fixed. He knows that If they exceed the guardians' estimate, his relief will be proportionably diminished, and his increased labour only be a saving to the rate-payers Tlie desirable object of implanting in the rising generation an unwillingness to receive legal relief, is frustrated by out-door relief being given to families ; the habit of dependency being taught and encouraged in the chikh'en " It is doubtless more expensive to relieve a whole family in the workhouse, than to give a small out-door relief. But on the other hand, for one family that would avail itself of the workhouse, hundreds seek the other species of relief, and so outbalance far the expenditure in the former case." We have quoted English testimonies enough. We shall now give one testimony of great importance from America. It is from the report of a committee in Phila- delphia, in 1825 :— " A compulsoi'y provision for the poor increases pauper- ism, entails an oppressive bui'then on a country, and promotes Idleness and licentiousness. Poor laws have done away with private charity, are onerous to the community, and every way injurious to the morals and independence of that class for whose benefit they were intended. The only effectual relief from their evils Is, the total repeal of those laws. In this country, where all classes have equal rights, and population is far from pressing on the means of subsistence, it is, indeed, alarming to find pauperism progressiyig with such rapidity. We are fast treading in the footsteps of England." 426 POOR LAWS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. We, in Ireland, have been compelled to tread for some way in those footsteps, by the English planned and Eng- lish imposed poor law of 1838 ; and it urgently behoves us to take warning in time, ere we be hurried farther along a track so marked with ruinous waste and aggra- vated and ever increasing wretchedness. THE ACT FOR THE UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. (Royal assent given on Friday, August, 1800 J Whereas in pursuance of His Majesty's most gracious recom- The Paiiia- mendation to the two Houses of Parliament in Great Britain Qi™\^(^|!i. and Ireland respectively, to consider of such measures as might tain ami n-e- best tend to strengthen and consolidate the connexion between resolved to the two kingdoms, the two Houses of the Parliament of Great concmin o •' uicfisurcs lOi' Britain, and the two Houses of the Parliament of Ireland, have uniting the severally agreed and resolved, that in order to promote and ^^^^^^ "^" secure the essential interests of Great Britain and Ireland, and to consolidate the strength, power, and resources of the British empire, it will be advisable to concur in such measures as may best tend to unite the two kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland into one kingdom, in such manner, and on such terms and con- ditions, as may be established by the acts of the respective Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. And whereas, in furtherance of the said resolution, both Said pariia- Houses of the said two Parliaments respectively, have likewise alo-eed upon agreed upon certain articles for affectuatlng and establishing following the said purposes in the tenor following : — ARTICLE FIRST. That it be the first article of the Union of the kingdoms of <5reat Bri- Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great land to be Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which evcrfromist shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred ^^- isoi. 428 THE ACT FOR THE UNION and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of " The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ;" and that the royal style and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said united kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags, and banners thereof, shall be such as His Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the great seal of the united kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint. ARTICLE SECOND. to'tii'eCrown That it be the second article of Union, that the succession to continue to the imperial crown of the said united kinsrdom, and of the as at pre- -,..'■, ,, . in •■••i i sent. dominions thereunto belonging, shall continue limited and set- tled in the same manner as the succession to the imperial crown of the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland now stands limited and settled, according to the existing laws and to the terms of Union between England and Scotland. ARTICLE THIRD. One paiUa- That it be the third article of Union, that the said united kingdom be represented in one and the same Parliament, to be styled " The Parliament of the united kingdom of Great Bri- tain and Ireland." ARTICLE FOURTH. 4 Srirituai That It it be the fourth article of Union, that four lords splrl- andl'Slem- inxiii • n • i -iii porai Lords tual 01 Ireland, by rotation or sessions, and twenty-eight lords Ireland and temporal of Ireland, elected for life by the peers of Ireland, 100 Com- shall be the number to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the parliament of the United kingdom ; and one hundred commoners, (two for each county of Ireland, two for the city of Dublin, two for the city of Cork, one for the University of Trinity College, and one for each of the thirty-one most considerable cities, towns, and boroughs,) be the number to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Commons of the par-liament of the united kingdom. Thcrepvo- That sucli act as shall be passed in the parliament of Ire- aet shall te land previous to the Union, " to regulate the mode by which as part (rf^ the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, to serve in the Union, the parliament of the united kingdom on the part of Ireland, shall be summoned and returned to the said parliament," shall be considered as forming part of the treaty of Union, and OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, 429 shall bo incorporated in the acts of the respective parliaments by which the said Union shall be ratified and established. That all questions touching- the rotation or election of lords Rotation spiritual or temporal of Ireland to sit in the parliament of the ofLordV™ united kingdom, shall be decided by the House of Lords there- spiritual ana ttiTiiportil . of ; and whenever by reason of an equality of votes in the election of any such lords temporal, a complete election shall not be made according to the true intent of this article, the names of those peers for whom such equality of votes shall be so given, shall be written on pieces of paper of a similar form, and shall be put into a glass by the clerk of the parliaments at the table of the House of Lords whilst the House is sitting, and the peer or peers whose name or names shall be first drawn out by the clerk of the parliaments shall be deemed the peer or peers elected, as the case may be. That any person holding any peerage of Ireland now sub- insh peers sisting, or hereafter to be created, shall not thereby be dis- ^,1!°^^^';"°' qualified from being elected to serve, if he shall so think fit, serve as or from serving or continuing to serve, if he shall so think fit, senJe'a™'^^ for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, in the House British com • of Commons of the united kingdom, unless he shall have been during' previously elected as above to sit in the House of Lords of the they'camint united kingdom ; but that so long as such peer of Ireland shall beeieeteato so continue to be a member of the House of Commons, he peers. shall not be entitled to the privilege of peerage, nor be capable of being elected to serve as a peer on the part of Ireland, or of voting at any such election, and that he shall be liable to be sued, indicted, proceeded against, and tried as a commoner, for any offence with which he may be charged. That it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and succes- Creation of sors, to create peers of that part of the united kingdom called "'^ ^ i^^'''"'*- Ireland, and to make promotions in the peerage thereof after the Union, provided that no new creation of any such peers shall take place after the Union, until three of the peerages of Ireland which shall have been existing at the time of the Union shall have become extinct, and upon such extinction of three peerages, that it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to create one peer of that part of the united king- dom called Ireland, and in like manner so often as three peer- ages of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland shall become extinct, it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to create one other peer of the said part of the united kingdom ; and if it shall happen that the peers of that 430 THE ACT FOR THE UNION part of the united king-dom called Ireland shall, hy extinction of peerages, or otherwise, be reduced to the number of one hundred, exclusive of all such peers of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland as shall hold any peerage of Great Britain subsisting at the time of the Union, or of the united kingdom created since the Union, by which such peers shall be entitled to an hereditary seat in the House of Lords of the united kingdom, then and in that case it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to create one peer of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland, as often as any one of such one hundred peerages shall fall by extinction, or as often as any one peer of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland sha^ll become entitled by des- cent or creation to an hereditary seat in the House of Lords of the united kingdom ; it being the true intent and meaning of this article, that at all times after the Union it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to keep up the peerage of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland to the number of one hundred, over and above the number of such of the said peers as shall be entitled by descent or creation to an hereditary seat in the House of Lords of the united kingdom. In what That if any peerag'e shall at any time be in abeyance, such Ciiscs peer* •/ i O t/ «/ ' itges may be peerage shall be deemed and taken as an existing peerage, and tinct'^'^ '^"^ "0 peerage shall be deemed extinct unless on default of claim- ants to the inheritance of such peerage for the space of one year from the death of the person who shall have been last pos- sessed thereof, and if no claim shall be made to the inheritance of such peerage in such form and manner as may from time to time be prescribed by the House of Lords of the united king- dom, before the expiration of the said period of a year, then and in that case such peerage shall be deemed extinct ; pro- vided that nothing herein shall exclude any person from after- wards putting in a claim to the peerage so deemed extinct, and if such claim shall be allowed as valid by the judgment of the House of Lords of the united kingdom reported to his Majesty, such peerage shall be considered as revived ; and in case any new creation of a peerage of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland, shall have taken place in the interval, in conse- quence of the supposed extinction of such peerage, then no new right of creation shall accrue to his Majesty, his heirs or suc- cessors, in consequence of the next extinction which shall take place of any peerage of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland. OF GUEAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 431 That all questions touching' the election of members to sit on i^fw the part oi" Ireland in the House of Commons of the United totiching Kingdom, shall be heard and decided in the same manner as pj^jj^^jj questions touching such elections in Great Britain now are, or Commoners at any time hereafter shall by law be heard and decided, sub- cmed. ^ ject, nevertheless, to such particular regulations in respect of Ireland as from local circumstances the parliament of the united kingdom may for time to time deem expedient. That the qualifications in respect of property of the members Quaiifica- . • tions as to elected on the part of Ireland to sit in the House of Commons piopcity of the united kingdom, shall be respectively the same as are Commoners now provided by law in the cases of elections for counties and siiaii be cities and boroughs respectively in that part of Great Britain England!" called England, unless any other provision shall hereafter be made in that respect by act of parliament of the united king- dom. That when his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall declare How the his, her, or their pleasure, for holding the first or any subse- of the united quent parliament of the united kingdom, a proclamation shall ^/"J'^jg ggjj. ,'dom issue under the great seal of the united kingdom, to cause the stituted lords spiritual and temporal, and commons who are to serve in the parliament thereof on the part of Ireland, to be returned in such manner as by any act of this present session of the par- liament of Ireland shall be provided ; and that the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain shall, together with the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons so returned as aforesaid on the part of Ireland, constitute the two houses of the parliament of the united kingdom. That if his Majesty, on or before the first day of January, ^" ^^'^ij* one thousand eight hundred and one, on which day the Union present is to take place, shall declare under the great seal of Great bo'tii' Houses Britain, that it is expedient that the lords and commons of the '" g- r.ritain snail 1)6 present parliament of Great Britain should be the members of members of the respective houses of the first parliament of the united king- Jj[ent^'of «ic dom on the part of Great Britain, then the said Lords and united king- Commons of the present parliament of Great Britain shall ac- cordingly be the members of the respective houses of the first parliament of the united kingdom on the part of Great Britain, and they, together with the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons so summoned and returned as above, on the part of Ireland, shall be the lords spiritual and temporal, and com- mons, of the first parliament of the united kingdom, and such first parliament may (in that case), if not sooner dissolved, 432 THE ACT FOR THE UNION continue to sit bo long as the present parliament of Great Britain may now by law continue to sit, if not sooner dis- No more solved : provided always, that until an act shall have passed in iiish Com- the parliament of the united kingdom, providing in what cases monera persons holding offices or places of profit under the crown in places shall Ireland, shall be incapable of being members of the House of ^ited par- Commons of the parliament of the united kingdom, no greater iiament; number of members than twenty holding such offices or places be returned as aforesaid, shall be capable of sitting in the said House of ofVie'^iast Commons of the parliament of the united kingdom ; and if such shall 1)0 a number of members shall be returned to serve in the said ■\acac . house, as to make the whole number of members of the said house holding such offices or places as aforesaid more than twenty, then, and in such case, the seats or places of such members as shall have last accepted such offices or places shall be vacated, at the option of such members, so as to re- duce the number of members holding such offices or places to the number twenty ; and no person holding any such office or place shall be capable of being elected, or of sitting in the said house, while there are twenty persons holding such offices Oaths to be ^^ placcs sitting in the said house; and that every one of the takenasnow Lords of parliament of the united kingdom, and every member by pariia- of the House of Commons of the united kingdom, in the first Great°^ and all succeeding parliaments, shall, until the parliament of Britain. the united kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths, and make and subscribe the declaration, and take and subscribe the oath now by law enjoined to be taken, made, and subscribed by the lords and commons of the parliament of Great Britain. Privileges, That the lords of parliament on the part of Ireland, in the "ani^\nd Housc of Lords of the united kingdom, shall at all times have precedency t^^ same privileges of parliament which shall belong to the lituai and lords of parliament on the part of Great Britain ; and the lords th™imperiai spii'itual and temporal respectively on the part of Ireland, shall parliament, at all times have the same rights in respect of their sitting and voting upon the trial of peers, as the lords spiritual and temporal respectively on the part of Great Britain ; and that all lords spiritual of Ireland shall have rank and precedency next and immediately after the lords spiritual of the same rank and degree of Great Gritain, and shall enjoy all pri- vileges as fully as the lords spiritual of Great Britain do now, or may hereafter enjoy the same, the right and privilege of sitting in the House of Lords, and the privileges depending thereon, and particularly the right of sitting on the trial of OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 433 peers, excepted ; and that the persons hohling any temporal peerages of Ireland existing at the time of the Union, shall, from and after the Union, have rank and precedency next and immediately after all the persons holding peerages of the like orders and degrees in Great Britain, subsisting at the time of the Union ; and that all peerages of Ireland, created after the Union, shall have rank and precedency with the peerages of the united kingdom so created, according to the dates of their crea- tions ; and that all peerages, both of Great Britain and Ire- land, now subsisting, or hereafter to be created, shall, in all other respects, from the date of the Union, be considered as peerages of the united kingdom, and that the peers of Ireland shall, as peers of the united kingdom, be sued and tried as peers, except as aforesaid, and shall enjoy all privileges of peers as fully as the the peers of Great Britain ; the right and pri- vilege of sitting in the House of Lords, and the privileges depending thereon, and the right of sitting on the trial of peers, only excepted. ARTICLE FIFTH. That it be the fifth article of Union, that the churches of churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into ami Ireland one Protestant episcopal church, to be called " The united "'"ted into Church of England and Ireland ;" and that the doctrine, wor- ship, discipline, and government of the said united church, shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are now by law established for the church of England ; and that the continuance and preservation of the said united church, as the established church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union ; and that in like manner the doctrine, worship, discipline, and Church of government of the church of Scotland shall remain and be pre- continue as served as the same are now established by law, and by the acts cgf^Jj^g^ed for the Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, ARTICLE SIXTH. That it be the sixth article of Union, that his Majesty's Qre^t'^Bn-^ subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and after the tain and ire- first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one, be on same ^ entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as footing from , . . ^ 1st Jiinuary to encouragements and bounties on the like articles being the isoi. 2 F 434 ^ THE ACT FOR THE UNION growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the united kingdom and its dependencies ; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs and succes- sors, with any foreign power, his Majesty's subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty's subjects of Great Britain. No duty That from the first day of January, one thousand eiffht hun- or uoimtv " '' ^ on exporta- dred and one, all prohibitions and bounties on the export of duce^of'one articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country th™th^ to to the other shall cease and determine, and that the said articles shall thenceforth be exported from one country to the other without duty or bounty on such export. All articles That all articles the g-rowth, produce, or manufacture of the produce ., . t • f i i- of either either country, (not herem-aiter enumerated as subject to shai°^ im- specific duties,) shall from thenceforth be imported into each ported free country from the other, free from duty, other than such coun- except those tervailing duties on the several articles enumerated in the sche- m schedule j^]g -^q^ j^ j^ ^nd B, hereunto annexed, as are therein specified, or such other countervailing duties as shall hereafter be im- posed by the parliament of the united kingdom, in the manner Duties in herein-after provided ; and that for the period of twenty years tobep^d^' from the Union, the articles enumerated in the schedule No. II, for20 years, hereunto annexed, shall be subject, on importation into each country from the other, to the duties specified in the said sche- wooiien'' ^vL\e No. II. And the woollen manufactures, known by the maiiufac- names of old and new drapery, shall pay on importation into each country from the other, the duties now payable on import- ation into Ireland. DuHes on Salt aud hops, on importation into Ireland from Great Bri- and coals' tain, duties not exceeding those which are now paid on import- into Ireland, ation into Ireland ; and coals on importation into Ireland from seiit. ^^^ Great Britain, shall be subject to burthens not exceeding those to which they are now subject. Regulation That calicoes and muslins shall, on their importation into caiicoes^Mid either country from the other, be subject and liable to the duties inusluis ; jjQYvr payable on the same, on the importation thereof from Great Britain into Ireland, until the fifth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight ; and from and after the said day the said duties shall be annually reduced by equal proportions as near as may be in each year, so as that the said duties shall stand at ten per centum, from and after the fifth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, until the fifth day of OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 435 January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one ; and that ?'^o respect- cotton yarn and cotton twist shall, on their importation into yam ami either country from the other, be subject and liable to the duties cotton twist. now payable upon the same, on the importation thereof from Great Britain into Ireland, until the fifth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight; and from and after the said day, the said duties shall be annually reduced by equal propor- tions as near as may be in each year, so as that all duties shall cease on the said articles from and after the fifth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen. That any articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of Produce of either country, which are or may be subject to internal duty, or tiy.^subject to duty on the materials of which they are composed, may be *" inteniai made subject, on their importation into each country respect- on "iiuporta- ively from the other, to such countervailing duty as shall ap- eaciiccmn- pear to be just and reasonable in respect of such internal duty or *n, i>e sub- duties on the materials, and that for the said purposes the arti- teivaiUng cles specified in the said schedule, No. 1, A and B, shall be sub- ^"/7'sche- ject to the duties set forth therein, liable to be taken off, dimin- duie i, a ished, or increased in the manner herein specified, and that ^^^ ^' upon the export of the said articles from each country to the other respectively, a draw -back shall be given equal in amount to the countervailing duty payable on such articles on the import thereof into the same country from the other, and that in like manner in future, it shall be competent to the united parliament to impose any new or additional countervailing duties, or to take off or diminish such existing countervailing duties, as may appear on like principles to be just and reason- able, in respect of any future or additional internal duty on any article of the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, or of any new or additional duty on any mate- rials of which such article may be composed, or of any abatement of duty on the same, and that when any such new or additional countervailing duty shall be so imposed, on the import of any article into either country from the other, a drawback equal In amount to such countervailing duty, shall be given in like manner on the export of every such article res- pectively, from the same country to the other. That all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of ^*'"^ o ' 1. ' cn»xr"'GS on either country, when exported through the other, shall, in all produce of cases, be exported subject to the same charges as if they had tryexpnrted been exported directly from the country of which they were the through the growth, produce, or manufacture. 2 F 2 Not to extend to 436 THE ACT FOR THE UNION iieguiations That all duty charged on the import of foreie:]! or colonial respecting . -^ => , i, *• i • i , duty on goods, into either country, shall, on their export to the other, foreign pTo- ^^ either drawn back, or the amount (if any be retained) shall duce. be placed to the credit of the country to which they shall be so exported, so long as the expenditure of the united kingdom shall be defrayed by proportional contributions ; provided always, com, &c. that nothing herein shall extend to take away any duty, bounty, or prohibition, which exists with respect to corn, meal, malt, flour or biscuit, but that all duties, bounties, or prohibitions on the said articles may be regulated, varied, or repealed, from time to time, as the united parliament shall deem expedient. SCHEDULE, NO. II. Of the articles charged with the duties specified upon importa- tion into Great Britain and Ireland respectively, according to the sixth article of the Union. Apparel Brass, wrought Cabinet ware Coaches and other carriages Copper, wrought Cottons, other than calicoes and muslins Glass Haberdashery Hats Tin-plates, wrought iron, and hardware Gold and silver lace, gold and silver thread, bullion for lace, pearl and spangles Millinery Paper, stained Pottery Saddlery, and other manufactured leather Silk manufacture Stockings ARTICLE SEVENTH. Charges for That it be the seventh article of Union, that the charge curred by arising from the payment of the interest and the sinking fund dom beforf* ^^^ *^^^ reduction of the principal of the debt incurred in either Union, shall kingdom before the Union, shall continue to be separately de- OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 437 frayed by Great Britain and Ireland respectively, except as |jyt^I!|^^Jj*'^'^ hereinafter provided. That for the space of twenty years after the Union shall ^°J'f^jj^j^Y* take place, the contribution of Great Britain and Ireland res- bution pectively, towards the expenditure of the united kingdom in expemuture each year, shall be defrayed in the proportion of fifteen parts oftireat for Great Britain, and two parts for Ireland ; that at the ex- Ireland, piration of the said twenty years, the future expenditure of the ig'^to2\ner united kingdom, other than the interest and charges of the which the debt to which either country shall be separately liable, shall be may°he'au defrayed in such proportion as the parliament of the united t^^^'f? '^^ kingdom shall deem just and reasonable, upon a comparison of the real value of the exports and imports of the I'espect- ive countries, upon an average of the three years next pre- ceding the period of revision, or on a comparison of the value of the quantities of the following articles consumed within the respective countries on a similar average, viz. beer, spirits, sugar, wine, tea, tobacco, and malt, or according to the aggre- gate proportion resulting from both these considerations com- bined, or on a comparison of the amount of income in each country, estimated from the produce for the same period of a general tax, if such shall have been imposed on the same des- criptions of income in both countries ; and that the parliament of the united kingdom shall afterwards proceed in like manner to revise and fix the said proportions according to the same rules, or any of them, at periods not more distant than twenty years, nor less than seven years from each other, unless pre- vious to any such period the parliament of the united kingdom shall have declared, as herein-after provided, that the expendi- ture of the united kingdom shall be defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the like articles in both countries. That for the defraying the said expenditure, according to the ^/i^/aad rules above laid down, the revenues of Ireland shall hei^eafter shall be a constitute a consolidated fund, which shall be charged in the fund°appu- first instance with the Interest of the debt of Ireland, and with cable to in- tcr^st sink- the sinking fund applicable to the reduction of the said debt, ing fu'nti, and the remainder shall be applied towards defraying the pro- diture^of"" portion of the expenditure of the united kingdom to which Ire- united land may be liable in each year. " ' That the proportion of contribution to which Great Britain in Ireland and Ireland will be liable, shall be raised by such taxes in each ^ ff 'j! ^^'^'^' country respectively, as the parliament of the united kingdom more highly shall, from time to time, deem fit ; provided always, that in liJ^EnViand. 438 THE ACT FOR THE UNION regulating the taxes in each country by which their respective proportions shall be levied, no article in Ireland shall be made liable to any new or additional duty by which the whole amount of duty payable thereon would exceed the amount which will be thereafter payable in England on the like article. of^uJpius'of That if, at the end of any year, any surplus shall accrue tiie revenues from the revenues of Ireland, after defraying the interest, sink- ing fund, and pi'oportional contribution, and separate charges to which the said country shall then be liable, taxes shall be taken off to the amount of such surplus, or the surplus shall be applied by the parliament of the united kingdom to local pur- poses in Ireland, or to make good any deficiency which may arise in the revenues of Ireland in time of peace, or be in- vested by the commissioners of the national debt of Ireland in the funds, to accumulate for the benefit of Ireland at compound interest, in case of the contribution of Ireland in time of war ; provided that the surplus so to accumulate shall, at no future period, be suffered to exceed the sum of five millions. Alimonies That all monies to be raised after the Union by loan, in thefunkin^"^ peace or war, for the service of the united kingdom, by the ?^.^" ^e a parliament thereof, shall be considered to be a joint debt, and the charges thereof, shall be borne by the respective countries in the proportion of their respective contributions ; provided that if at any time in raising their respective contributions hereby fixed for each country, the parliament of the united kingdom whatshau shall judge it fit to raise a greater proportion of such respective when"a contributions in one country within the year than in the other, greater pro- or to sct apart a greater proportion of sinking fund for the Bhaii*be liquidation of the whole, or any part of the loan raised on ac- raised or set count of the One countrv than of that raised on account of the Apart in one "^ country Other country, then such part of the said loan for the liquida- other!" ^ tion of which different provisions shall have been made for the respective countries, shall be kept distinct, and shall be borne by each separately, and only that part of the said loan be deemed joint and common, for the reduction of which the res- pective countries shall have made provision in the proportion of their respective contributions. In what That if at any future day, the separate debt of each country fmperiaf respectively shall have been liquidated, or if the values of their parUament respective dcbts (estimated according to the amount of the in- that future^ terest and annuities attending the same, and of the sinking I^P^I^^'^^ fund applicable to the reduction thereof, and to the period frayed by within which the whole capital of such debt shall appear to be OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 439 redeemable by such sinking- fund) shall be to each other in the ^'i"'*^ *''^®^ same proportion with the respective contributions of each articles, country respectively, or if the amount by which the value of ^'^^^rHcu- the larger of such debts shall vary from such proportion shall '?»' exemp- not exceed one hundredth part of the said value, and if it shall Ireland and appear to the parliament of the united kingdom that the ScoUand. respective circumstances of the two countries will thenceforth admit of their contributing indiscriminately, by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each, to the future expenditure of the united kingdom, it shall be competent to the parliament of the united kingdom to declare that all future expense thence- forth to be incurred, together with the interest and charges of all joint debts contracted previous to such declaration, shall be so defrayed indiscriminately, by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each country, and thenceforth, from time to time, as circumstances may require, to impose and apply such taxes accordingly, subject only to such particular exemptions or abatements in Ireland, and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand. That from the period of such declaration, it shall no longer After such be necessary to regulate the contribution of the two countries nrspecitic'' towards the future expenditure of the united kingdom, accord- precitea wu as a part of this act, and be deemed to all intents and purposes *^'!'j'l^<' p^^ incorporated within the same ; provided always that the said herein recited bill shall receive the royal assent, and be passed into a law previous to the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one ; and provided also, that if the said herein recited bill shall not receive the royal assent and be passed into a law previous to the said first day of January, which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, this act and every part thereof shall be of no force or validity whatsoever. X. And be it enacted, that the great seal of Ireland may, if Greatscaiof his Majesty shall so think fit, after the union be used in like manner as before the union, except where it is otherwise pro- ^• vided by the foregoing articles, within that part of the united kingdoni called Ireland, and that his Majesty may, so long as he shall think fit, continue the privy council of Ireland to be his privy council for that part of the united kingdom called Ireland, 2g 45d SCHEDULE KO. L— A. Of the Articles to he charged with Countervailing Duties uj)on Importation from Ireland into Great Britain, according to the Sixth Article of Union. ON IMPORTATION INTO GREAT BRITAIN FROM IRELAND. ARTICLES. Bee^. — For every barrel consisting of thirty-six gallons, EnglisK beer measure, of Irish beer, ale, or mum, which shall be imported into Great Britain directly from Ire- land, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity, to be paid by the importer thereof, Bricks and Tiles For every thou- sand of Irish bricks, For every thousand of Irish plain tiles For every thousand of Irish pan or ridge tiles. For every hundred of Irish paving tiles, not exceeding ten inches square, For every hundred of Irish paving tiles, exceeding ten inches square, For every thousand of Irish tiles, other than such as are herein be- fore enumerated and described, by whatsoever name or names such tiles are or may be called or known. Candles For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish caudles of tallow, and other candles whatso- ever, (except wax and spermaceti,) CUSTOMS. EXCISE £ *. d. \ £ s. d. 8 5 4 10 12 10 2 5 4 10 4 10 1 SCHEDULE NO. I. — A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. 451 ARTICLES. For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish candles which may be made of wax or spermaceti, or which are usually called or sold either for wax or spermaceti, not- withstanding the mixture of any other ingredient therewith. Chocolate, &c. — For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish cocoa, cocoa-paste, or chocolate, Cordage, viz To be used as stand- ing rigging or other cordage made from topt hemp, the ton, contain- ing twenty cwt. Of any other sort, cable yarn, pack- thread, and twine, the ton, contain- ing twenty cwt. Cyder and Perry. — For every hogshead, consisting of sixty-three gallons, English wine measure, of Irish cyder and perry, which shall be imported as merchandize, or for sale, and which shall be sent or consigned to any factor or agent to sell or dispose of. Glass. — For every square foot super- ficial measure of Irish plate glass, For every hundred weight of Irish flint, enamel, stained, paste, or phial glass, For every hundred weight of Irish- spread window glass, commonly called broad glass, For every hundred weight of Irish window glass (not being spread glass), whether flashed or other- wise manufactured, and commonly CUSTOMS. d. 4 10 3 4 4 4 EXCISE. .3i 2 10 2 2 2i 2 3 (3 8 1 2 G 2 452 SCHEDULE NO. I. — A. On Importation into Great Bintain from Ireland. ARTICLES. called or known by the name of crown glass or German sheet glass, For every hundred weight of vessels made use of in chemical laborato- ries and of garden glasses, and of all other vessels or utensils of com- mon bottle metal, manufactured in Ireland, common bottles excepted. For every hundred weight of any sort of species of Irish glass not herein before enumerated or described, Bottles of common green glass, the dozen quarts ... ... ... j Hops. — For every pound weight i avoirdupois of Irish hops, ... ' Leather, unmanufactured. — For every pound weight avoirdupois of hides of what kind soever, and of calf skins, kips, hog skins, dog skins, and seal skins, tanned in Ire- land, and of sheep skins and Iamb skins, so tanned for gloves and bazils, which shall be imported in the whole hide or skin, and neither cut nor diminished in any respect whatever. For every dozen of goat skins tanned in Ireland, to resemble Spanish leather, ... For every dozen of sheep skins, tan- ned in Ireland, for roans, being after the nature of Spanish leather. For every pound weight avoirdupois of all other hides or skins not herein before enumerated and des- CUSTOMS. £ s. d. 9 EXCISE. £ s. d. 1 9 9 4 01 2 2 1: H 4 2 3 SCHEDULE NO. I. A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. 453 ARTICLES. cribed, and of all pieces and parts of hides or skins which shall be tanned in Ireland, For all hides of horses, mares, and gelding's, which shall be dressed in alum and salt or meal, or other- wise tawed in Ireland, for each and every such hide, For all hides of steers, cows, or any other hides of what kind soever, (those of horses, mares, and geld- ings excepted,) which shall be dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed in Ireland, for each and every such hide, For every pound weight avoirdupois of all calf-skins, kips, and veal- skins, which shall be so dressed in alum and salt or meal, or other- wise tawed in Ireland, and im- ported into Great Britain in the whole skin, neither cut nor dimi- nished in any respect whatever, ... For every dozen of slink calf- skins, which shall be so dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed with the hair on in Ireland, For every dozen of slink calf-skins, which shall be so dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed without hair in Ireland, and for every dozen of dog-skins and kid-skins, Avhich shall be dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed in Ireland, For every pound weight avoirdupois of buck and doe-skins, which shall be dressed in alum and salt or CUSTOMS. EXCISE. £ 6 1 6 3 li 3 1 454 SCHEDULE NO. I A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. ARTICLES. meal, or otherwise tawed in Ire- land, and which shall be imported in the whole skin, and neither cut nor diminished in any respect what- ever, For every dozen of goat-skins and beaver-skins, which shall be dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed in Ireland, For every pound weight avoirdupois of sheep-skins and lamb-skins, which shall be dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed in Ireland, and which shall be imported in the whole skin, and neither cut nor diminished in any respect whatever. For every pound weight avoirdupois of all other hides and skins not hereinbefore enumerated and de- scribed, and of all pieces or parts of hides or skins, which shall be dressed in alum and salt or meal, or otherwise tawed in Ireland, ... For every pound weight avoirdupois of all buck, deer, and elk skins, which shall be dressed in oil in Ireland, and imported in the whole skin, and neither cut nor di- minished in any respect whatever, For every pound weight avoirdupois of all sheep and lamb skins Avhich shall be dressed in oil in Ireland, For every pound weight avoirdupois of all other hides and skins, and parts and pieces of hides and skins, which shall be dressed in oil in Ireland, CUSTOMS. EXCISE. d. G 2 U 6 1 3 6 SCHEDULE NO. I. — A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. 455 AKTICLES. Foi* every dozen of Irish vellum, For every dozen of Irish parchment, Leather, manufactured into goods and wares : — For every pound weight avoirdupois of tanned leather manufactured and actually made into goods and wares in Ireland, For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish made boots and shoes, and gloves and other manufactures made of tawed or dressed leather, For every pound weight avoirdupois of all buck and deer skins and elk skins dressed in oil, and manu- factured into goods and wares in Ireland, For every pound weight avoirdupois of all sheep and lamb skins dressed in oil, and manufactured into goods or wares in Ireland, For every pound weight avoirdupois of all other hides and skins not herein before enumerated or de- scribed, dressed in oil, and manu- factured into goods or wares in Ireland, Mead or Metheglin — For every gallon English wine measure of Irish mead or metheglin. Paper. — For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish paper fit or proper, or that may be used for, or applied to the uses or purposes of writing, drawing, and printing, or CUSTOMS. £ s. d. EXCISE. £ s. d. 3 5i 1 8f 1| I 1 3 6 1 Oi 456 SCHEDULE NO. I. A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. ARTICLES. either of them, and of all Irish elephant papers and cartridge papers, For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish coloured papers, and whited brown papers (other than and except elephant and cartridge papers) fit and proper for the use and purpose of wrapping up goods, and not fit or proper, or capable of being used for, or applied to the purposes of writing, drawing, and printing, or either of them, For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish brown paper fit and proper for the use and purpose of wrap- ping up goods, and not fit or pro- per, or capable of being used for or applied to the uses and purposes of writing, drawing, and printing, or either of them. For every pound weight avoirdupois of every sort or kind of Irish paper not herein-before enumerated or described, sheathing and button- paper and button-board excepted, For every one hundred weight of Irish paste-board, mill-board, and scale board For every one hundred weight of Irish glazed papers for clothiers and hot-pressers. For every pound weight avoirdupois of books bound or unbound, and of maps or prints, which shall be im- ported into Great Britain directly from Ireland, CUSTOMS. £ s. d. £ s. d. 2i 1 Oi 2i 10 6 6 2 SCHEDULE NO. I. A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. 457 ARTICLES. Printed Goods. — For every yard square of Irish printed, painted, or stained papers, to serve for hang- ings, or other uses. For every yard in length reckoning yard wide of foreign calicoes and foreign muslins, which shall be printed, painted, stained, or dyed, in Ireland (except such as shall be dyed throughout of one coloui*), over and above any duty of cus- toms payable on the importation of foreign calicoes and muslins, ... For every yard in length reckoning yard wide of all Irish printed, painted, stained, or dyed Irish made calicoes, muslins, linens and stuffs, made either of cotton or linen mixed with other materials, fus- tians, velvets, velverets, dimities, and other figured stuffs, made of cotton and other materials, mixed or wholly made of cotton wool (except such as shall be dyed throughout of one colour only) ... For every yard in length reckoning yard wide of all Irish printed, stained, painted, or dyed Irish made stuffs not before enumerated or described, (except such as shall be dyed throughout of one colour only, and except stuffs made of woollen, or whereof the greatest part in value shall be woollen) ... For every yard in length reckoning- half yard wide of all Irish printed, stained, painted, or d^cd silks (silk handkerchiefs excepted), over and CUSTOMS. d. EXCISE. £ s. d. If 7 3i 3i 458 SCHEDULE NO. I. A. On Iw^portation into Great Britain from Ireland. ARTICLES. above any duty of customs payable on the importation of silk For every yard square of Irish print- ed, stained, painted, or dyed silk handkerchiefs, and so in proportion for wide or narrow silk handker- chiefs, over and above every duty of customs payable on silk Salt. — For every bushel consisting of fifty-six pounds weight avoirdu- pois of Irish salt or Irish glauber or Irish epsom salt For every bushel consisting of fifty- six pounds weight avoirdupois of Irish rock salt Silk Manufactures of ribbons and and stuffs of silk only, the pound containing sixteen ounces Note. — Two-thirds of the weight of gauze and one-third of the weight of crape is to be deduct- ed for gum and dress. Silk and ribbons of silk mixed with gold or silver, the pound contain- ing sixteen ounces Silk stockings, silk gloves, silk fringe, silk laces, stitching or sewing silk, the pound containing sixteen oun- ces Silk, manufactures of, not otherwise enunaerated or described, the pound containing sixteen ounces Stuffs of silk and grogram yarn, the pound containing sixteen ounces... Stuff's of silk mixed with inkle or cot- ton, the pound containing sixteen ounces CUSTOMS. £ s. d. 5 6 8 3 4 1 2 I 8 EXCISE. £ s. d. 1 1| 4^ 10 10 SCHEDULE, NO. I. — A. On Importation into Great Britain fi'om Ireland. 459 ARTICLES. Stuffs of silk and worsted, the pound containing sixteen ounces Stuffs of silk mixed with any other material, the pound containing six- teen ounces Soap. — For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish hard cake or ball soap For every pound weight of Irish soft soap Spirits, British. — For every gallon English wine measure of spirits, aqua vitce, or strong waters, which shall be distilled or made in Ireland, and imported at a strength not exceeding one to ten over hydrometer proof Note — Spirits above the strentrth of one to ten will be charged in proportion, and on sweetened or compounded spirits the duty will be computed upon the highest degree of strength at which such spirits can be made. Starch. — For every pound Aveight of Irish starch, or hair powder, of what kind soever Sugars — refined, viz., called bas- tards, whole or ground, the hun- dred weight Lumps, the hundred weight Single loaf, the hundred weight Powder loaf, and double loaf, the hundred weight Sugar candy, bi'own, the hundred weight CUSTOMS. £ s. d. 10 1 3 18 2 1 1 4 16 Of 4 1 19 1 1 14 Of EXCISE. £ s. 2\ !| 5 n 3^ 460 SCHEDULE NO. I. A. On Importation into Great Uritain from Ireland. ARTICLES. Sugar candy, white, the hundred weight Sugar, refined, of any other sort, the hundred weight Sweets. — For every barrel, consist- ing of thirty-one gallons and a half, English wine * measure, of Irish sweets or other Irish liquor, made by infusion, fermentation, or otherwise, from fruit or sugar, or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other materials or ingredients whatsoever,commonly called sweets, or called or distinguished by the name of made wines Tobacco and Snuff. — For every pound weight avoirdupois of un- manufactured tobacco, of the growth or produce of Ireland, over and above any duty of customs ... For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured short cut tobacco, or tobacco manufactured into what is commonly called or known by the name of Spanish ... For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured shag to- bacco ••. ... ••• ... For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish maiiufactured roll tobacco For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured carrot to- bacco For every pound weight avoirdupois of every other sort of Irish manu- factured tobacco, not herein be- fore enumerated or described CUSTOMS. £ s. d. 1 19 1 1 19 1 EXCISE. £ s. 2 2 1 1 1 7 1 51 1 7 1 51 1 7 SCHEDULE NO. I. — A. On Importation into Great Britain from Ireland. 461 ARTICLES. For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured rappee snuff For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured Scotch snuff For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured brown Scotch snuff For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish manufactured tobacco stalk flour For every pound weight avoirdupois of every other sort or kind of Irish manufactured snuff, or snuff work not herein before enumerated or described Tobacco, unmannufactured, the pound Verjuice. — For every hogshead con- sisting of sixty-three gallons, English wine measure, of Irish verjuice Vinegar. — For every barrel con- sisting of thirty-four gallons, English beer measure, of Irish vinegar Wire. — For every ounce Troy weight of Irish gilt wire For every ounce Troy of Irish sil- ver wire For every pound weight avoirdu- pois of Irish gold thread, gold lace, or gold fringe, made of plate wire spun upon silk For every pound weight avoirdupois of Irish silver thread, silver lace, or silver fringe, made of plate wire spun upon silk CUSTOMS. d. £ s. d. 1 lOi 1 3f 1 9 1 l()i 7 12 8i 9i 7 7 8 5 9 4G2 SCHEDULE NO. L— B. Of the Articles to he charged rcith Countervailing Duties upon Importation from Great Britain into Ireland, according to the Sixth Article of Union. ON IMPORTATION INTO IRELAND FROM GREAT BRITAIN. ARTICLES. BEER. For and upon every barrel containing thirty-two gallons imported from Great Britain GLASS BOTTLES. For and upon each reputed quart LEATHER, unmanufactured. For and upon each pound in every hide or skin or piece of any such hide or skin, of what kind or denomination soever, other than such as are hereinafter mentioned and described For and upon each hide of horses, mares, or geldings For and upon all skins called veal skins, and all skins of hogs, for every dozen skins thereof, and after the same rate for any greater or less quantity For and upon all skins for shoes and other like purposes, and all seal skins, for every dozen thereof, and after the same rate for any greater or less quantity For and upon all skins for bookbinders' use, for every dozen thereof, and after the same rate for any greater or less quantity For and upon all goat skins tanned with shumack, or otherwise to resemble Spanish leather, and all sheep skins tanned for roans, being after the nature of Spanish leather, for evei-y pound weight avoirdupois £ s. d. 4 G Qi 1 1 5 2 G 1 I SCHEDULE NO, I. — B, On Importation into Ireland from Great Britain. 463 ARTICLES. For and upon all sheep and lamb skins tanned for gloves and basils, for every pound weight avoir- dupois, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity LEATHER dressed in Oil. For and upon every hide and skin, and piece of such hide and skin, other than such as are hereinafter mentioned or described, for every pound weight avoirdupois For and upon all deer-skins, goat-skins, and beaver-skins, for every pound weight thereof avoirdupois For and upon all calf-skins, for every pound weight thereof avoirdupois For and upon all sheep and lamb-skins, for every pound weight avoirdupois VELLUM and PARCHMENT. For and upon every dozen skins of vellum For and upon every dozen skins of parchment ... LEATHER manufactured into Goods and Wares. For and upon all tanned leather manufactured into goods and wares, whereof leather is the most valuable part, the following duties, viz : — For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of tanned leather, manufactured and actually made into goods and wares in Great Britain, of leather only, or of which leather makes the most valuable part For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of tawed or dressed leather, manufactured and actually made in Great Britain, of leather only, or of which leather makes the most valuable part £ s. d. 01 2 3 2 li 6 3 1 1 464 SCHEDULE, NO. I. B. On Importation into Ireland from Great Britain. ARTICLES. For and upon every pound weiglit avoirdupois of all buck and deer-skins and elk- skins dressed in oil, and manufactured into goods and wares in Great Britain, of leather only, or of which leather makes the most valuable part For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of all sheep and lamb skins dressed in oil, and ma- nufactured into goods and wares, in Great Bri- tain, of leather only, or of which leather makes the most valuable part For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of all other hides and skins, not herein-before enu- merated or described, dressed in oil, and manu- factured into goods and wares, in Great Britain, of leather only, or of which leather makes the most valuable part PAPER. For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of paper fit or proper for, or that may be used for, or applied to the uses or purposes of writing, drawing, or printing, or either of them, and all elephant paper, and all cartridge paper For every pound weight avoirdupois of all coloured paper, and whited brown papers, other than and except elephant and cartridge paper, fit or proper for the uses or purposes of wrapping up goods, and not fit or proper, or capable of being used for, or applied to the uses or purposes of writing, drawing, and printing, or either of them, and also except paper hangings For every pound weight avoirdupois of brown pa- per fit and proper for the use or purpose of wrapping up goods, and not fit or proper, or capable of being used for, or applied to the uses or purposes of writing, drawing, or printing, or either of them £ s. d. 3 Oi () 2 2i 1 Oi SCHEDULE NO. I. — B. On Importation into Ireland from Great Britain. 465 ARTICLES. For and upon every one hundred weight of glazed paper proper for clothiers and hot-pressers, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity For and upon every one hundred weight of paste- board, millboard, and scaleboard, and so in pro- portion for any greater or less quantity For and upon every pound weight of every sort or kind of paper, not herein before particularly enumerated or described, other than and except papers commonly called and known by the names of sheathing paper and button paper, or button board and paper hangings STAINED PAPER. For and upon every square yard of printed, paint- ed, or stained paper for hangings or other uses, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of books bound or unbound, and of maps or prints, which shall be imported into Ireland from Great Britain CARDS. For and upon every pack of printed, painted, or playing cards made or manufactured in Great Britain And a further duty of 2^d. per pound weight. DICE. For and upon every pair of dice made or manufac- tured in Great Britain WROUGHT PLATE. For and upon every ounce Troy weight of gold or silver plate which shall be wrought, made, or £ s. d. 5 10 21 1 2 1 5 10 2 H ACS -SCHEDULE NO. I Ti. On Importation into Ireland from Great Britain. ABTICLES. manufactured in Great Britain, and imported into Ireland Silk Manufacture For and upon all silks being of the manufacture of Great Britain, and im- ported directly from thence, the following duties, viz. For and upon all ribbons and stuffs of silk only, for every pound weight thereof containing six- teen ounces For and upon all silk and ribbons of silk mixed with gold or silver, for every pound weight thereof containing sixteen ounces For and upon all silk stockings, silk gloves, silk fringe, silk laces, stitching and sewing silk, for every pound weight thereof containing sixteen ounces For and upon all manufactures of silk not other- wise enumerated or described, for every pound weight thereof containing sixteen ounces For and upon all stuffs of silk and grogram yarn, the pound weight containing sixteen ounces ... For and upon all stuffs of silk mixed with inkle or cotton, the pound weight containing sixteen ounces For and upon all stuffs of silk and worsted mixed, the pound weight containing sixteen ounces ... For and upon all stuffs of silk mixed with any other material, the pound weight containing sixteen ounces Spirits For and upon every gallon of spirits being of the manufacture of Great Britain, and imported from thence, a duty of Sugar. — Refined, of the manufacture of Great Britain, and imported directly from thence, the following duties, viz. — £ s. d. 6 2 1 2 9 1 3 1 8 6 9 4 61 3 7 SCHEDULE NO. I. — B. Oh Importation into Ireland from Great Britain. m ARTICLES. For and upon all sugar, called bastards, white or ground, the hundred weight, containing 112 pounds For and upon all sugar, called lumps, the hun- dred weight, containing 112 pounds For and upon all sugar, called single loaf sugar, the hundi'ed weight, containing 112 pounds. For and upon all sugar, called powder loaf, and double loaf, the hundred weight, containing 112 pounds upon all sugar, called sugar candy, the hundred weight, containing 112 For and brown, pounds For and ■white, pounds For and upon all sugar refined, of any other sort the hundred weight, containing 112 pounds .., upon all sugar, called sugar candy, the hundred weight, containing 112 Sweets. — For and upon every barrel, containing thirty-two gallons wine measure, of British sweets, or other British liquor, made by Infu- sion, fermentation, or otherwise, from fruit or sugar, or from fruit and sugar mixed with any other material or ingredients whatsoever, com- monly called sweets, or called or distinguished by the name of made wines For and upon every gallon of mead or metheglin, For and upon every barrel, containing thirty-two gallons, of vinegar Tobacco and Snuff. — For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of unmanufactured tobacco of the growth or produce of Great Britain, over and above any duty of customs now payable 2 £ s. d. 19 8 1 16 10| 1 19 4 2 2 4 1 16 10 2 2 4 2 2 4 10 4 3 2 5 468 SCHEDULE NO. I. — B. On Importation into Ireland from Great Britain. ARTICLES. For and upon every pound weight of British manu- factured short cut tobacco, or tobacco manufac- tured into what is commonly called and known by the name of Spanish For and upon every pound weight of British ma- nufactured shag tobacco, cut ... For and upon every pound weight of British ma- nufactured roll tobacco For and upon every pound weight of British ma- nufactured carrot tobacco For and upon every pound weight of every other sort of British manufactured tobacco not herein before enumerated or described For and upon every pound weight avoirdupois of British manufactured rappee snuff For and upon every pound weight of British ma- nufactured snuff, called Scotch snuff For and upon every pound weight of British ma- nufactured snuff, called brown Scotch snuff ... For and upon every pound weight of British ma- nufactured stalk flower For and upon every pound weight of every other sort or kind of British manufactured snuff or snuff-work not herein before enumerated or described £ s. d. 1 O/g 11 1 0/^ 11 1 0/, lOi 1 4 9f 1 3 1 4 469 COPY OF LORDS' PROTEST. 26th MARCH, 1800. DISSENTIENT, First — Because that in the present awful state of affairs, protest. when the most unremitting industry is made use of to unhinge every established government in Europe — when revolutionary principles have produced the overthrow of several ancient established governments, we think every loyal subject who regards the liberties of his country, called upon to rally round the constitution and to preserve its stability. We, therefore, cannot help protesting against the rashness of the minister, who in such times hazards the experiment of annihilating that constitution, which has for so many ages maintained the con- nexion between great Britain and Ireland, and of substituting in its stead, in opposition to the general voice of the nation, a new system, totally subversive of every fundamental principle of that constitution, which we consider as the best security for those liberties which the subjects of Ireland now enjoy. Second — Because however willing we now are, and always have been, to contribute in proportion to our means to the support and defence of the empire, we hold it our bounden duty, before that we shall irrevocably enter into any engage- ment to take upon ourselves any particular proportion of the expenses of the empire, to ascertain the probable amount of such proportion, to enquire into the ability of Ireland to dis- charge the same, and to examine whether such part be propor- tionate to the relative abilities of the two nations. Upon such enquiry, we find that the expense incurred by Great Britain in the year 1799, amounted to upwards of thirty-two millions, and that which was incurred by Ireland in the said year amounted to upwards of six milUions, 2-l7ths of which sums (the proposed proportion) amount to upwards of £4,400,000, which sum, added to the present interest of the debt incurred by Ireland, and the discharge of her annuities, amounting to £1 ,400,000, and the interestof the loan of this year, amounting to about £250,000, will make the annual charge upon Ireland amount to £6,050,000. It appears to us that the produce of our revenue, including the estimated amount of the taxes laid on this session, do not 470 lords' protest. exceed £2,800,000, and consequently they will fall short by £3,250,000 of the sum necessary to discharge such propor- tionate part of the expenses of the empire. In order to ascer- tain the relative abilities of the two nations, their respective balances of trade with the whole world have been compared, and it appears from thence that such balance in favour of Great Britain amounts to the sum of £14,800,000, and that such balance in favour of Ireland, according' to the returns laid before this house, amount to the sum of £599,312; taking therefore the balance of trade as a criterion of ability, the pro- proportion would be as twenty-nine to one. Enquiry likewise having been made into the current cash in circulation in both kingdoms, it appears that in the year 1777 the current cash in Great Britain was calculated at £43,000,950, and it is com- puted by persons, the best informed upon that subject in this kingdom, that the current cash in Ireland may now amount to between £3,000,000 and £3,500,000; taking it there- fore at the latter, the proportion should be as twelve to one. Considering it in another very essential point of view, the influx and eflux of money into the respective kingdoms, it appears that Great Britain receives, by remittances to persons having property in the East and West Indies who reside in Great Britain, £4,000,000 sterling. We do not know of any influx of money into Ireland, save that of £509)312, the balance of her trade ; and it appears to us that she annually remits to Great Britain, on account of her debts, the sum of £720,000, and on account of the pay of 3,234 men serving in Great Britain, the sum of £101,570. These annual drains, together with the remittances to absentees, (probably little short of £2,000,000,) we consider to have occasioned the high rate of exchange with Great Britain during the last twelve months, from 3 to 5 per cent, above par, notwithstanding that during that period £3,000,000 have been borrowed in Great Britain and remitted to Ireland. We do not know of any fund to resort to for raising the said deficiency of £3,250,000, save by taxation, an addition to which cannot, in any considerable degree, be supported ; and by resorting to her landed property, the gross contents of which being but^ eleven million planta- tion acres, we cannot estimate at more than the annual rent of £5,500,000. We observe that the large sums of money bor- rowed by Ireland within these four years, have been for the most part i-aised in Great Britain, owing to the total disability of procuring them in Ii*eland. The facility of raising money in Great Britain and the difficulty found in raising" any in AGAINST THE UNION. 471 Ireland, clearly demonstrates the opulence of the one nation, and the poverty of the other. Under such circumstances it appears to us, that if this kingdom should take upon herself irrevocably the payment of 2-17ths of such expenses, she will not have, means to perform her engagement., unless by charg'- ing her landed property with 12 or 13 shillings in the pound. It must end in the draining from her her last guinea — in totally annihilating her trade, for want of capital — in rendering the taxes unproductive — and, consequently, in finally putting her into a state of bankruptcy. We think ourselves called upon to protest against a measure so ruinous to this country, and to place the responsibility for its consequences upon such persons as have brought it forward and supported it. For these reasons, and believing the above statement to be accurate, we thus record our dissent. 3rd — For these, and many other reasons too tedious and too obvious to be here dwelt upon, we have deemed it our boundeu duty, both to ourselves and to our descendants, thus publicly to declare our dissent from those resolutions approving of the measure of a legislative Union, which have passed this house, calling on our latest posterity to entreat, that in virtue of this our solemn declaration, they will acquit us of having been in anywise instrumental to their degradation, and to the ruin of that country which they may hereafter inhabit. Leinster. downshire. Meath. Granard. Ludlow, by proxy. MoiRA, by proxy-. Arran. Charlemont. Mountcashel. Faunham. Dillon. Strangford. PoWERSCOURT. De Vesci, by proxy. Wm. Down & Connor. Rd. WaTERFORD Si LiSMORE. Louth. Massy, by proxy. lliVERSDAEE, by proxy. SuNDERLiN, for the first reason. MR. O'CONNELL'S PLAN RE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. Report of the Committee of the National Association of Ireland, to whom it was referred to suggest a Proposal, to he converted into a Law for the Re-construction of the House of Commons of Ireland. The House of Commons of Ireland, before the Union, con- sisted of 300 members ; of these 64 were returned by open con- stituencies from the 32 counties. These constituencies were not only open, but numerous — the forty-shilling franchise being so low, as naturally to admit a great number of the Irish people into the class of electors. To these 64 may be added the 2 representatives for the University of Dublin, making altogether 66, and leaving 234 for the cities, towns, and boroughs of Ire- land (many of these were close and nomination boroughs, of which class no less than 40 were created in one day by James the 1st). Of the remainder almost all the great towns had open constituencies, as had also several of the lesser towns. In the open constituencies the franchises were in the hands of freemen, of freeholders down to 40*. ; and in several towns, of occupiers of houses of £5 annual Value. By the Union, the counties were left in possession of their representatives ; the city of Dublin, and the city of Cork, were allowed to retain two members each. There was one member for the University of Dublin, and thirty-one were distributed among the towns, of which eighteen at least were close or nomination boroughs. 474 MR. o'connell's plan for the Thus, two-thirds of the entire representation of Ireland was struck off by the Union, and the remaining one-third was dis- tributed in the manner we have already stated. The Reform Bill restored the second member to the Uni- versity of Dublin, and also to each of the towns of Water ford. Limerick, Galway, and Belfast, thus adding five to the Irish representation, being in all 105 members. Such is the state of facts with which we have to deal, in suggesting a proposal for the restoration of the Irish House of Commons. It is plain that such new representation must necessarily be founded on a new distribution of members ; for which purpose the English Reform Act furnishes a precedent which we deem to be of great utility. By that bill additional members were given to the English counties, graduated rather loosely upon the population of each ; — TVe have adopted a not dissimilar classification. The boroughs disfranchised at the Union, can have no claim to be restored. Many of them were merely the sites of an- cient towns and villages, of which almost all trace has been lost ; and of which the memoi'y has almost totally perished since they ceased to afford a pretext for furnishing seats in the Commons House of Parliament. For almost all of them com- pensation in money was given to the boroughmongers, who had, against every constitutional principle, usurped the power of nominating members. And if there are (as there certainly are) included in our proposed plan, some of the towns whose representation was suppressed at the Union, that representation belonged to individuals, or to fictitious corporations, and the proposed new representation relates only to the amount of their population, and their present relative importance, not to any retrospect to their former condition. With respect to the counties, we suggest that the only county in Ireland with less than 100,000 inhabitants — namely, Carlow — should get an increase of one member ; that every other county, being above 100,000 inhabitants, should get an increase of two members. Thus Carlow county would have three mem- bers, and every other county at least four. We suggest that every county ranging about 150,000 inha- bitants, should get an increase of three members, so as to have, five in all. We suggest that every county having about 250,000 inha- bitants, should get an increase of four members, so as to have six in all. IIE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 475 We propose that the only county in Ireland havhig 400,000 inhabitants, and not amounting to 500,000 — namely, the county of Tipperary — should get eight members ; and that the county of Cork, having more than 700,000 inhabitants, should have twelve members. The total for the counties will thus be 173 members. With respect to the remaining 127 members, we propose that they should be distributed as follows : First — That the city of Dublin, having more than 200,000 inhabitants, should have eight representatives ; four for the parts north of the Liffey, and four for the parts south of the Liifey ; and that the University of Dublin should continue, with its constituency upon the present basis, to send two members to parliament. We propose, that the city of Cork, having more than 104,000 inhabitants, should have five members. We propose that the city of Limerick, and the town of Belfast, having each of them more than 50,000 inhabitants, should send four members each to parliament. We propose that the town of Galway, and the cities of Waterford and Kilkenny, having each of them more than 20,000 inhabitants, should send three members each to par- liament. We propose that the other towns having 7,000 inhabitants, or at least above 6,900, should each send two members to par- liament ; and that 49 other towns, the next highest in the ratio of population, should have one member each ; so as to make up in all the 300 members. Our proposed plan will be more distinctly understood from the following Schedule of the different places to return mem- bers to the Irish parliament — of their relative population — and of the number of members to be assigned to each : — 476 MR. o'CONNELL'S plan FOR THE COUNTY. POPULATION. MEMBEKS. Antrim, 316,909 6 Armagh, 220,134 5 Carlo w, 81,988 3 Cavan, 227,933 5 Clare, 258,322 6 Cork, 713,716 12 Donegal, 289,149 6 Down, 352,012 7 Dublin County, 176,012 5 Fermanagh, 149,763 5 Galway, 381,564 7 Kerry, 263,126 6 Kildare, 108,424 4 Kilkenny, 169,945 5 King's County, 144,225 4 Leitrim, 141,524 4 Limerick, 248,801 6 Londonderry, 222,012 5 Longford, 112,558 4 Louth, 107,481 4 Mayo, 366,328 7 Meath, 176,826 5 Monagtan, 195,536 5 Queen's County, 145,851 4 Roscommon, 249,613 6 Sligo, 171,765 5 Tipperary, 402,563 8 Tyrone, 304,468 6 Waterford, 148,233 5 Westmeath, 136,872 4 Wexford, 182,713 5 Wicklow, 121,557 4 County Members, 173 TOWNS. POPULATION. MEMBERS. Ardee, Arklow, Armagh, 3,975 4,383 9,470 1 1 2 RE- CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 477 TOWNS. POPULATION. MEMBERS. Athlone, ... .... 11,406 2 Athy, 4,494 1 Balllna, 5,510 1 Ballinasloe, 4,615 1 Ballymena, 4,067 1 Ballyshannon, 3,775 1 Bandon Bindge, 9,917 2 Bantry, 4,275 1 Belfast, 53,287 4 Boyle, 3,433 I Bray, 3,758 1 Carlow, 9,114 2 Cahir, 3,480 1 Callan, 6,111 1 Carrickfergus, 8,706 2 Carrick-on- Suir, 9,626 2 Cashel, 6,971 2 Castlebar, 6,373 1 Charleville, 4,766 1 Clonmel, 15,134 2 Clonakilty, 3,807 I Coleraine, 5,752 1 Cork City, 107,016 5 Cove, 6,966 1 Dingle, 4,327 1 Downpatrick, 4,784 1 Dungarvan, 6,527 I Dublin City, 204,155 8 Dublin University, ... 2 Dundalk, 10,078 2 Dungannon, 3,515 1 Drogheda, 17,365 2 Ennis, 7,711 2 Enniscortby, 5,955 1 Enniskillen, 6,116 1 Fermoy, 6,976 2 Fethard, County Tipperary, ... 3,405 1 Gal way Town, 33,120 3 Gort, 3,627 1 Kells, 1 4,326 1 Kilrush, . . • • 3,996 1 478 MR. o'cONNELL'S plan FOR THE TOWNS. rOPULATION. MEMBERS. Kinsale, 7,312 2 Kilkenny City, 23,741 3 Killarney, 6,910 2 I^imerick City, 66,554 4 Lisburn, 5,218 I Londonderry, 10,130 2 Longford, 4,516 Louglirea, 6,268 Mallow, 5,229 Mountmellick, 4,577 Mitchelstown, 3,545 Monaghan, 3,848 Mullingar, 4,995 Navan, 4,416 Naas, 3,808 Nenagh, 8,466 New Ross, 5,011 Newtownards, 4,442 Newry, 13,064 2 ParsonstowD, 6,595 Rathkeale, 4,972 Roscommon, 3,306 Roscrea, 5,512 Sligo, 15,152 2 Skibbereen, 4,429 Strabane, . 4,700 Tlpperary, 6,972 2 Thurles, 7,084 2 Tralee, • 9,568 2 Trim, 3,282 1 Tuam, 6,883 1 Tullamore, 6,342 1 Waterford City, 28,821 3 Westport, 4,448 1 Wexford, 10,673 2 Youghal, 9,608 2 Members for Cities and Towns, . . 127 » for Count les, .. 173 Total Representatives, . . 300 IIE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 479 It liiis boen considered that the most impartial way to ascer- tain tlie rehitive importance of the several towns, and of the number of members they should return, was to take the popula- tion returns of 1831. Those returns having been made for a quite different purpose, are, when used for our present purpose, of unquestionable impartiality. The next topic to which our attention has been called, is the nature of the elective franchise of the constituencies who are to return these members. We are unanimously and decidedly of opinion that the franchise should be Household Suffrage ; that is, that every man inhabiting a house, either as owner or occupier, for the space of three months before the election, shall have a vote ; care being taken that no person shall vote at more than one place. We are also decidedly of opinion, that the mode of voting should be by Ballot, which, by taking proper precautions, can be rendered perfectly secret. Such is the proposal we suggest for the re- construction of the Irish House of Commons — Household Suffrage — Vote hy Ballot — and the duration of Parliament not to be beyond three years. No oath or declaration to be taken by the members of par- liament, save the oath or declaration of allegiance to her Ma- jesty, her heirs and successors. No religious test whatsoever to be taken. The House of Lords would, of course, consist of all the peers of Ireland, whether created before the Union or since : and we conceive that it would be highly desirable, that her Majesty should be recommended to elevate to the peerage in Ireland, some twenty to thirty among the principal resident land-owners in this country ; selecting such as have been for years generally resident, and are likely to continue so. It may be alleged, that in proposing to give to the agricul- tural districts 173 members, and to the towns, or mercantile interests, but 127, an undue proportion is thus struck between the one and the other. But we think there is no weight in such an objection. There is no antagonism of interest between the mercantile and agricultural classes in Ireland ; and we consider that in point of fact, the greatest interest our com- mercial men can have, is in the increase of the number of landed proprietors, whose duty or whose ambition would lead them to continue to reside in their respective counties : thus 480 MR. O'CONNELL'S PLA.N FOR THE employing the income derived from lands in Ireland, in the consumption of the articles in which our mercantile men prin- cipally deal. It may be objected, that it is premature to bring before the public the plan for the re-construction of the Irish Parliament, before we have made more progress towards that combination of public opinion from which alone we can hope for success. But we deem it most fair and reasonable, at the earliest pos- sible stage of that agitation which can terminate only in the Repeal, to submit to the good sense, and calm consideration of the people of Ireland, the best mode of re-constituting their house of commons. At present our plan can be discussed coolly and dispassionately, and its defects, if any, can be pointed out without creating heat or animosity. Not so, if the period of the Repeal were actually at hand. Then local interests would create or magnify objections ; and accusations of per- sonal or particular motives might be made, which cannot now be even dreamt of. We have therefore deemed it the wisest course to procure the discussion and adoption of a settled plan of re-construction of the Irish House of Commons, at a period when it can be discussed and adopted, without the smallest intermixture of passion, prejudice, or private interest. The next consideration naturally is — in what mode we pro- pose to carry out our plan for the re-construction of the Irish House of Commons. The answer is — that we propose to have it passed into law by the United Parliament, in the usual course; and that we expect that when the general voice of Ireland is sufficiently ascertained, there will be no difficulty in procuring the assent of the legislature to the passing of such an act. But there are other modes in which the Crown may easily procure the restoration of the Irish legislature, should her Majesty be so advised. Let it be recollected, that in the judgment of our present Lord Chancellor, who is keeper (in Ireland) of her Majesty's conscience, the Union was in itself a nullity ; that is his pre- cise expression ; it was his solemn judgment — and he is bound by it. The Queen therefore might be advised to act in either of these two ways : — Firstly — She may call together in Dublin, by intimation, or invitation, the 105 members now representing Irish constitu- encies, more than forty of them (that is more than sufficient to RE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 481 make a house,) would certainly attend any royal summons, how- ever informal. And Her Majesty might easily bring together a sufficient number of the Irish peers. And thus, with the assent of her Majesty, an ordinance might be enacted, adopting the plan we have suggested for re-constructing the Irish Par- liament, and authorising the issuing of writs or summonses ac- cordingly. The parliament, when met under such writs or summonses, would have no difficulty in enacting laws, with the assent of the Queen, sanctioning their own appointment, and confirmatory of their own legislative powers. Secondly — Let it be recollected, that it was originally the exclusive prerogative of the Crown to issue to such places as it thought fit, writs for the election of members of parliament ; and this prerogative continued to be exercised down to the reign of Queen Anne. The familiar fact of the creation in Ireland by King James the First of no less than forty boroughs in a single day — boroughs that from that time continued to send members to parliament until the Union — proves in the strongest way the power to exercise (as it also shews the abuse of) this prerogative. Now there is no act of parliament in Ireland taking away the prerogative from the crown. It therefore continues to exist, unimpeached and undiminished ; and her Majesty might be ad- vised at once to issue writs to all the counties, and to the seve- ral towns named in our proposed plan ; and then she may either bring together, or create, a sufficient number of Irish peers to constitute the Irish parliament. It is quite true, that the proposal we suggest, is one intended to be enacted by the united parliament ; but we were not thereby prevented from pointing out the other means (such as the two modes above described) for obtaining the same object. To each of such modes there are abundant technical and legal objections, but we believe there is no Constitutional Difficulty in the way. The constitution of these realms is suited to meet every emergency ; and the most irregular proceedings of parliament have been sanctioned, and become the law of the land. For instance, in the year 1399 the parliament dethroned Richard the Second, the legitimate monarch, and conferred the crown upon Henry the Fourth, who had no kind of title to that crown, nor was he even heir of succession to Richard. This parliamentary act regulated the succession of the crown for 2i 482 MR. o'connell's plan for the three generations, and several of the statutes passed during that interval, are binding at the present day. Again, the parliament, in the instance of Edward the Fourth, assumed the like power of disposing of the crown ; taking it away from the house of Lancaster, and conferring it upon that of York. Again, the case of Henry the Seventh is yet stronger. The parliament in 1485, after the battle of Bosworth, gave him a legal title to the crown, although he had no other title than that most irregular law. It is true he afterwards married the heiress of the house of York ; but he took especial care, and indeed the most distinct modes, of disavowing any title as de- rived from her. And her Majesty, whose title is so indisputable, derives that title as one of his descendants. But the strongest instance remains behind. It is the case of King William the Third, of "glorious, pious, and immortal memory," The Convention Parliament at the revolution, with- out any king at all, dethroned the reigning and then legitimate monarch, James the Second. They used the word " abdicate ;" but a word is nothing. The actual fact is, that they dethroned King James, and en- throned King William, who had no species of claim to be king . — who had no kind of legal right to be king of England, as he was, not only during hi« wife's lifetime, but for some years after her decease. He had, we repeat, no other right, save that excellent and efficient one, of a most irregular act of par- liament. No persons can be more thoroughly convinced than we are, that a most legitimate right to the crown was acquired by the transactions of the revolution of 1688 ; but we are quite certain that a perfect title was made out by these transactions. And our allegiance to our most gracious sovereign, whom may God long- preserve, is much enhanced by the principles which were involved in, and sanctioned by the revolution. But what a host of legal and technical objections were and may be raised against each and all the precedents which we have thus cited, including the Glorious llevolution itself! We venture to assert, that none greater could be stated to either of the modes of repealing the Union we have suggested — no, nor hi/ any comparison so great ! Is was indeed from these instances that our constitutional lawyers, and particularly Judge Blackstone, have spoken " of the omnipotence of parliament." There is no possible reason HE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 483 why an Irish parliament should not be as omnipotent in Ireland as an English parliament in England. Thus, with the most unbroken and affectionate loyalty to ouv most gracious and beloved sovereign the Queen, we do trust and hope we shall yet live to see her open her faithful parlia- ment of Ireland with a speech from her Irish throne, and thus confer justice on her devotedly attached and loyal subjects, the People of Ireland. God save the Queen. DANIEL O'CONNELL, Chairman of the Committee. 2\st April, 1840. INDEX THE ARGUMENT FOR IRELAND. Page. DEBT Of Ireland, originated in the reign of William III, 9 Greatly swelled by her efforts to assist England - 9 to 1 3 (For further references to it, see the article on the " Taxation Injustice.") TESTIMONIES TO IRISH MISERY By Parliamentary Commissions - - 22 — 23 REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT. Lord Castlereagh's calculation at the Union - 51 — 52 Data on the present state of our representation - 53 — 58 FRANCHISES. Extracts from Mr. O'Connell's Reports, shewing the injustices in this respect . . - 59 — 68 COMPENSATION To Irish Borough-owners at the Union - - 68 — 72 THE "REGENCY" Dispute of 1789 . _ - - 73—76 " IRISH PARLIAMENT," Its good deeds _ _ . . Y6 — 77 Mr. O'Connell's Plan for the Re-construction of - 473—483 486 INDEX. rage. Molyneux's Case _ _ _ _ 73 Poyning's Law (1495) _ . _ 96 Attempts of the Irish Parliament before 1782, to assert its independence _ _ _ 37 — §8 Explanation of its alleged corruption and 2>roJiigaci/ in 1753 - - - - _ 91 Its achievement in 1782, Avith extracts from the debates at that time _ _ _ 94 — 107 Resolutions of Volunteer CorjDs, Grand Juries, &c., in favor of legislative independence - - 109 — 151 THE COMMERCIAL INJUSTICES. Extracts from English writers advising or confessing these injustices _ _ _ _ 153. — 156 Do. fi'om Pitt, Grenville, Huskisson, Labouchere - 157 Beginning of the Commercial Injustices, 1660 - 159 Restrictions on oiu- exports to England and the Colonies, and on our import from the latter - I6O Attack on om* woollen manufacture - - 161 — 170 The linen manufacture no fair equivalent - 171 — 178 Other minor injustices _ _ _ \sQ — 139 Why England relaxed her restrictions on om- trade 192 — 193 The "Freedom of Trade" obtained in 1780 196—200—240 The noted " Commercial Propositions" of 1785 - 200 Their defects as first proposed, and as " amended'^ 203 — 220 And ultimate abandonment - - - 227 Ineffectual struggles between 1782 and 1800, to get rid of the remaining restrictions - - 230 — 236 Commercial arrangements at the Union - - 237 — 240 Addenda, respecting the linen trade — decay of ma- nufactiu-es — sufferings of tradesmen - - 250 — 256 on the decrease of valuable exports, and of home consumption of home-produce - - 256 — 259 Extracts from Staunton's answer to Montgomery Martin - - - - 26l&seq. INDEX. 487 I'llgC. MEANS BY WHICH THE UNION WAS CARRIED. Mr. O'Connell's Report thereon, giving the testimony of Plunkctt, Bushe, Sanrin, &c. - - 277 — 286 Lord Grey's testimony on the same subject - 287 THE "TAXATION" INJUSTICE. Section i. — Repeal Association Petition of 1 842 against fiscal injustices of the Union, taken as the text of this article. — Castlereagh on the principle of the fiscal aiTangement Scotland's "Equi- valent" at her Union — Ireland none whatever. — Castlereagh on the Union rates of contribution. — Irish Lords against them Ditto, Mr. Speaker Foster. — Vesey Fitzgerald and Goulbom-n sub- sequently confessed them unjust — Castlereagh's pretences of fiscal relief to Ireland by the Union. — Foster's answer. — Fallacy and incon- sistency of these pretences. _ _ _ 289 — 308 Section ii. — Design of the consoUdation, and thus the entire subjection of Ireland to British debt — Anxiety of the various finance committees be- tween the Union and 1816, to bring about this ' object — Care to run Ireland into debt, separate from that of England — Statement, in figures, of the comparative increase up to 1817, of British and Ii'ish debt — Extraordinary injustice in deahng with the terms of the Union, that gave Ireland even a nominal protection — Confessions by the Committee of 1815, and by British ministers sub- sequently, of the excessive taxation of Ireland — ■ Outrageous breach of the Union Act, advised by the Committee of 1815, and earned out — No sub- stantial pretence to accoimt for it — Suggestion of what ought to have been done in 1816, instead of the consohdation of Exchequers. - - 308 — 326 Section hi. — Consequences of the Consolidation Act considered — Its asserted purposes — How borne 488 INDEX. Page. out ? — Two professed boons to Ireland, viz., re- lief from unjust rate of contribution, and from the pressure of her accumulated debt ; but instead of * real relief from either, she has been subjected to a liability of indiscriminate contribution ; operating whenever her revenues admit of it ; and being lightened only when there is an impossibility of paying : and this liabiUty is permanent upon her, until the whole of the enormous debt of Great Britam shaU be paid oflF— Proofs of this - 327—352 Section iv. — That Ireland has thus paid in a higher proportion than before the Consolidation, is simply o■^\^ng to the very gi-eat reduction of the com- mon expenditure since the period of that mea- sure The Union terms ought to have been tried under that reduced expenditure. — ^Why they were not. Most of the points of the Petition at the commence- ment of this article, are now proved. There re- mains but one of importance — ^viz., non-com- pensation (Ijy remission of taxation) for the fiscal injustice done to Ireland — E^ndence of this General remarks on the money drains from Ireland — ■ the absentee drain — ^the revenue di*ain, credited and uncredited, &c., &c. — Balance of public mo- ney remitted from one country to the other — Ch'cumstances of the expenditure of the Irish revenue _____ 353 — 365 Addendum to Taxation Injustice — Parliamentary returns of monies advanced for pubHc works in Ireland, and their Repayments, &c. &c. - 367 — 371 THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES GRIEVANCE. Report of National Association on the subject in 1840 373 — 380 Admitted statement in Parliament in 1844, of the revenue of the Irish Church Estabhshment - 381 — 382 INDEX. 469 Page. MISCELLANEA. 1st. Extracts from Mr. Battersby's Eepeal Manual 383 — 385 2nd. L-ish bar protest against the Union, 1799 - 385 — 386 3rd. Declaration of Eight Hon. Charles James Fox against the Union, May, 1800 - 387 — 388 4th. Resolutions of Orange Lodges against the Union, 1800 - _ _ _ 388—391 5th. Notices of the Scottish Union - - 392 — 393 CONCLUDING REMARKS— On the present Distress, and the proposed remedies 394 — 402 Repeal the only remedy - _ _ 402 — 403 POOR LAWS— History of, in England _ _ _ 406 — 417 How they have worked in Ii'eland - - 418 — 421 Indoor relief not suited to Ireland - - 421 Out-door relief — ^impossible to prevent frauds in - 421 — 425 American testimony as to their eftect - - 425 ACT OF UNION of Great Britain and Ireland - 427 Schedule of articles chargeable with 10 per cent, duty on importation into Great Britain and Ii'eland respectively, according to sixth article of Union - 436 Schedule of articles chargeable with countervailing duties on importation into Great Britain from Ire- land, according to sixth article of Union - 450 Schedule of articles chargeable with counten^aiUng duties on importation into Ireland fi'om Great Britain, according to sixth article of Union - 462 Copy of Lords' Protest against— 26th March, 1800 469 Re-construction of the Irish Parliament, j\Ir. O'Connell's Plan for the . _ - . 473 1 DATE DUE UNIVERSITY PRODUCTS, INC. #859-5503 3 9031 020 84171 4 'MM;:- ■: ■ .:•:■. :