employment. But even in this temporary | whom the several petitions were referred, encouragement, monopoly shewed its cloven together with the representation of our foot; for "English built ships" only could Linen Board, the purport of which was to be used in the trade: and even these should shew that "there being no prospect of any be "navigated according to law," which other market for those linens which were then means not by Irishmen.* stained, in case the use of them should be prohibited in Great Britain, the hands employed in them must stand idle."* The committee, after some deliberation, resolved that the use of all" printed, painted, stained, and dyed linens, except such as are of the growth and manufacture of Great Britain and Ireland, be prohibited." But we find that this resolution was not unanimous, for some of the members of that august body, more English than the rest, proposed as an amendment, that the word IRELAND be omitted; the amendment was, however, ne

Thus was it that England evinced her anxiety to give to Ireland "all the advantage" of the linen trade. But we find in her statute book more direct evidence of her want of faith, than this negative breach of the treaty would imply. By a bill passed by her Commons in 1711,+ a duty of £15 per cent. was levied " upon all chequered and striped linens, and upon all linens printed, painted, stained, or dyed, after the manufacture, or in the thread or yarn before the manufacture, in any foreign parts, which at any time shall be imported into Great Bri-gatived.+ tain.' This act had a very injurious effect upon Ireland; "for depending on the assurances of King, Lords, and Commons, the Irish people betook themselves to the linen manufacture, and their linens being for the most part proper for staining, stamping, and printing, a great part of them were employed in that way." And though Irish linens were not named in the bill, they were nevertheless subjected to the duty under the statute: thus were "the people of this kingdom, in this particular, considered as foreigners and aliens."+

Mr. Dobbs, speaking of the gain England enjoyed by not allowing us to export our painted and striped linens either to her colonies, or to her home markets, thus writes:-"The profit England gains upon the linen and linen-yarn, as it is improved there by working and stamping, since we cannot export it striped or stained with colours, or with any other mixture, is so far a monopoly. Upon the Irish linens, that they stamp or stain, they gain 10d. per yard profit at least, when stamped or stained: their gain upon it then is £147,500 yearly."§ One would have imagined that the people of England had, by this act, sufficiently restricted our trade" and enriched" themselves; such, however, was not their opinion, and they accordingly petitioned parliament, complaining of the continued use of printed and stained linens, and praying for their total disuse. A committee was appointed, to

This was not the practical interpretation England adopted for the word encouragement, when applied to her woollen manufacture. In that instance she interpreted it as meaning the putting a stop to all rivalry on the part of Ireland, by prohibiting the import of Irish woollens, and making it penal to export them to foreign countries. But when Irish trade was to be legislated foranother, and, as we have seen, a far different interpretation was given. Encouragement, applied to Ireland, if interpreted by the English Statute Book, means toleration.

Anderson,

Neither did England observe more scrupulously the other condition of the compact, to wit, her undertaking not to encourage a linen manufacture at home, to rival us. On the contrary, she used every means in her power to increase and extend her linen trade to the prejudice of ours. with reference to this, says,-" But, however solemnly this compact might be observed by Ireland, the truth was, that England carried on the linen manufacture to full as great an extent as Ireland, while the monopoly of the woollens remained totally with England."‡ By an act of her parliament, in 1716,§ purporting to be another "gracious encouragement," it was nanted that we might continue to export our white and brown linens to the plantations, under the former restrictions, "so long as the merchants and other persons of Great Britain were permitted to import into Ireland, free of all duties, such white and brown

cove

English Commons Journal, vol. xix. p. 237. † Ibid, p. 263, see Commons Journal, vol. xv. p.

393.

History of Commerce, vol. v. p, 383.

3rd. George I., chap. 26, England

ate rapidity; and that England's extending the bounty to our produce is no palliation of her guilt in thus violating what an honourable nation would look upon as the most sacred of obligations.

The first bounty was granted in 1743, and the quantity of Irish linen, exported from England, which received bounty in that year, was 40,907 yards. From year to year the quantity increased, till, in 1773, it amounted to 2,832,246 yards. But the statistics of the export of English linens during the same period, give the following very different ratio of increase :— English linens which received bounty

British linen cloth as should be made and manufactured in Great Britain." Thus, before nineteen years from the completion of the contract, we find England excluding some of our linens from her markets, and demanding free admission to ours, for an article which she was bound not to rival us in, by the terms of an agreement proposed, drawn up, and forced upon us by herself. Our parliament was, however, constrained to acquiesce in these exactions, and, in 1717, passed an act, throwing open our markets to the white and brown linens of England, free from all duties whatsoever.* And by a subsequent act, English cambrics, lawns, towelling," and all linens painted or stained in England," even if of foreign manufacture, were admitted duty free.t By the Thus we find that, to use the words of 15th and 16th George 11. chapter 29, the English Board of trade, this "system bounties were granted on the export of Eng- of linen bounties had been the means of lish linens, which were increased to nearly forwarding an extensive linen manufacture double their original amount by the 18th of in England."* In perfect keeping with this George II. chap. 25. In both cases they was the chartering of the British Linen were extended to Irish linens, if exported Company, for the express purpose of supfrom England. The available bounty, how-plying "British linens" to the plantations. ever, on Irish linens, though nominally the same as that on English, was on an average £8 per cent., the remainder being absorbed by the expense of freight, commission, &c.; whereas, that on English linens was about £12, from which there were no deductions.

in 1743...... Do. in 1773...

yds. 52,779 5,235,266

This company had their charter signed on the 5th July, 1746, and through its instrumentality the rival manufacture in Scotland, as well as England, was greatly advanced.+

The

Let us now enquire whether better faith was kept, with regard to the encourageThe granting a bounty on the export of ment of the hempen manufacture. English linens was, we contend, a most fla-proposal made in the speech of the Lords grant violation of the treaty; nay, more, the Justices in 1698, concludes with the asexporting them at all was a breach of that surance, that the hempen manufacture would clause which reciprocally bound the two nations-the one to refrain from the woollen, the trade of England;" but that its being "not only be encouraged as consistent with the other from the linen manufacture. And established here as the staple would " renwhen we remember, that on represen-der the trade of this kingdom both useful tation having been made to the English and necessary to England." More explicit house, by the woollen manufacturers of Eng; they could not well be: not only is the asland, that some Irish speculators continued to export woollens illicitly, an act was passed of self-interest, on the part of England, are surance of encouragement given, but motives placing under commission eleven armed urged, as arguments against the probability ships, to cruise off our coast, and "take, burn, of her at any future period breaking through or otherwise destroy," any ships which were the treaty. Relying upon this, the Irish found carrying Irish woollens: what Parliament passed several bills for the enterms, sufficiently strong, can we find where-couragement of the hempen manufacture, with to characterise the utter want of faith and expended large sums in its improvewhich England evinced on this occasion. That the extension of the bounty to Irish ment. It is important to observe that whenlinens had a beneficial effect on our trade of either the linen or hempen manufacture, ever a bill was brought in for the improvement we mean not to deny; while at the same they were both included in its title-thus considered as included in the terms of the incidentally shewing that they were both compact. We have seen that in legislating

time we affirm, that had the bounty not been granted on the linens of either country, we would have advanced with more proportion

4th George I., chap, 6.

† 17th George II., chap. 1.
5th George II. chap. 21, England.

* Report to Lord's Committee, 1781. † Anderson's History of Commerce, vol. iii. pp. 529, 574.

to feel that when the trade flourished, it did so in opposition to her rivalry, and that though in striving to retain it we maintained against her a long and expensive struggle, England finally triumphed in its overthrow. By the 12th Anne, chap. xii. which was

ment of the making of sail-cloth in Great Britain," one penny bounty was granted on every ell" of British made sail cloth or canvass fit for or made into sails, which after the 21st July, 1713, shall be exported out of Great Britain:' "* By another bill it was

for these manufactures, premiums were granted on the import of hemp-seed two years prior to their being granted on the import of flax-seed-that the manufacture of sailcloth was encouraged by a bounty being granted on its export at so early a period as 1707: that the trustees were re-entitled "an act for the better encouragequired by the act of incorporation to expend one-half the sum placed at their disposal in the improvement of the hempen manufacture, shewing clearly the great importance attached to it, and that it was considered to possess equal claims on the legislature. The bounty given on the export of sail-enacted, "that every ship or vessel which cloth by the 6th Anne, chap. ix.,* was in- shall be built in Great Britain, and in creased to twice its former amount by the his majesty's plantations in America, shall, 8th Anne, chap. xii.,† and was extended by before her first setting out or being first 1st George II. chap. ii. "to all sail-cloth navigated, have or be furnished with one used in ship furniture," and by 9th George full and complete set of new sails, made of II, chap. iv.§ to sail-cloth made for home sail-cloth manufactured in Great Britain, consumption. We do not refer to those under the penalty of £50 on the master of acts with the intent of detailing all that has the ship or vessel."+ been done with a view to its increase. It This act affords a fair sample of the manwould be both tedious and unprofitable as ner in which England redeemed the pledge regards our object to refer seriatim to the she had given to encourage the hempen manumany enactments which the trustees had re- facture of Ireland, and not to foster a rival source to enough has been done to shew one. By it a severe check was given to that great sums of money must have been our sail-cloth manufacture; but the final spent in the improvement and extension of blow was struck in 1750 by the English this trade, on the faith of its being protected act, 23rd George II, chap. whereby a and encouraged by England. The sum ex- duty of four pence per yard was imposed pended on it and the linen manufacture from on the import of Irish sail-cloth of the the appointment of the Linen Board to the value of fourteen pence per yard, and two year 1750 is computed at half a million ;|| pence per yard for any under that value. being a quarter of a million for the hempen." In consequence of which," to use the We learn from the report of the committee of 1772, that under the encouragement thus afforded, "the hempen manufacture so far flourished that the inhabitants of this kingdom did in a great measure supply themselves with hemp of their own growth, and were enabled to export great quantities of sail-cloth from this kingdom."¶

This was the condition of the hempen manufacture of Ireland. Let us now see how much truth is in the assertion, that we are indebted to the encouragement of England for the progress which it made. She promised us encouragement 'tis true; but we do not anticipate much difficulty in convincing the candid enquirer, that instead of owing aught to England for the extent which this trade attained, the very reverse is the case, and that we have too much reason

words of the report already referred to," the Irish, apprehensive of new discouragement, did totally abandon the culture of hemp, and are thereby obliged now (1772) to import annually at a medium to the amount of £21,777 value [of sail-cloth] instead of supplying themselves, which they formerly did." These were the "dragon's teeth," the sowing of which England so bitterly repented of when their unexpected fruit had ripened.

So much has been said and written to prove that the prosperity which the linen trade of Ireland had enjoyed, was owing to the "liberal encouragement" it met from the English legislature during the period that intervened between the sealing of that treaty, whereby the nation's wealth was handed over to the stranger by an aristocratic and irresponsible parliament, constituted not of Irish representatives, but of English nominees, and that bright spot in

* Statutes of the Realm, vol. ix. p. 781.
† 19th George II, chap. 27, Eng:

our history, whose brilliancy but serves to make the "darkness visible," that we deemed it of the last importance to investigate that portion of its history with the utmost care. We have now laid before our readers the results of our enquiry, and we doubt not but a careful consideration of the facts we have placed before their view, will force upon them as it has on us, the convic-ing the average of the seven years, comtion that to England we owe nothing of that prosperity.