FOOTNOTES:
[15] Ireland, however, has natural advantages which must not be forgotten in any estimate of her economical position, and which, although they do not compensate her for the want of coal, would under proper application do much to promote her prosperity. Thus Mr. O'Connell, towards the conclusion of his speech in his own defence, in the State Trials of 1844, says: "The country is intersected with noble estuaries. Ships of 500 tons' burthen ride into the heart of the country, safe from every wind that blows. No country possesses such advantages for commerce; the machinery of the world might be turned by the water-power of Ireland. Take the map and dissect it, and you will find that a good harbour is not more remote from any spot in Ireland than thirty miles." (R. v. O'Connell, p. 649.) Mr. Chaplin, in the speech to which I have referred, remarks: "No doubt Ireland does possess exceptional advantages in water-power which might be turned to great advantage." (Hansard, 261, Third Series, p. 836.) Ireland is not, however, absolutely devoid of coal. "Though," says Mr. C. Dawson, "we make no boast of our mineral treasures, they are, according to competent authority, well worthy of development. According to Professor Hull, the Leinster coal-basin contains 118 million tons, only outputting 83,000 tons per annum. In the North, especially in Tyrone, at Coal Island, there are 17,000 acres of coal-bed (30,000,000 tons), which the Professor says are by far the most valuable in Ireland. In the other districts in Ireland there are over 70,000,000 tons. Sir R. Kane supports the suggestion that borings should be made by the Government in this district to ascertain if the mineral wealth existed to the extent computed by Professor Hull, and he adds that when the panic arose in England about the duration of its coal supply, coal was looked for then outside the limits of the recognised coal-fields, and following them down into the Chalk in Kent and other places, of which Ireland was one." ("The Influence of an Irish Parliament on Irish Industries," Lecture by Mr. Charles Dawson, Freeman's Journal, Jan. 5, 1886.)
[16] "Burke on Irish Affairs," by M. Arnold, p. 101.
[17] "Commercial Restraints," p. 156. Mr. Secretary Orde, in introducing in the Irish House of Commons, in 1785, the Commercial Propositions, said: "Great Britain was aware of the preferable commercial situation of Ireland." ("Irish Debates," iv., p. 120.)
[18] "Life and Speeches of Lord Plunket," by the Right Hon. D. Plunket, vol. i., pp. 173, 174.
[19] "English in Ireland," vol. i., p. 178.
[20] "Parliamentary Debates," xv., p. 175.
[21] "Commercial Restraints," p. 164.
[22] "Irish Debates," iii., p. 123. Henry, Archbishop of Dublin, is mentioned in Magna Charta as one of the barons whose "advice" led to the signing of that instrument by John. This prelate, Henry de Loundres, or "the Londoner," erected St. Patrick's Church, Dublin, into a cathedral, and created the offices of Precentor, Chancellor, Treasurer, and Dean—the last a post destined to be rendered famous five centuries later by the incumbency of Swift. Strange that at far-distant periods of time St. Patrick's Cathedral should be associated with the names of two illustrious assertors of liberty!
[23] These enactments are mentioned in the "Commercial Restraints," pp. 164-169.
[24] "Commercial Restraints," p. 169.
[25] 12 Car. II., c. 18.
[26] 13 & 14 Car. II., c. 11, s. 6.
[27] "English in Ireland," i., p. 179.
[28] "Parliamentary Debates," xv., pp. 175, 176. Edmund Burke, speaking in the British House of Commons, on May 6th, 1778, thus commented on this transaction: "In the 12 Car. II. the Navigation Acts passed, extending to Ireland, as well as England. A kind of left-handed policy, however, had deprived her of the freedom she enjoyed under that Act, and she had ever since remained under the most cruel, oppressive, and unnatural restrictions." ("Parliamentary Debates," viii., p. 265.)
[29] Except victuals, servants, horses, and salt, for the fisheries of New England and Newfoundland.
[30] 15 Car. II., c. 7, s. 13.
[31] 18 Car. II., c. 2.
[32] 32 Car. II., c. 2. Irish cattle were readmitted into England by the 32 Geo. II., c. 11. This was but a temporary enactment, but it was renewed without difficulty. Hely Hutchinson says it was acknowledged that the importation did not lower English rents. ("Commercial Restraints," p. 86.)
[33] 22 & 23 Car. II., c. 26.
[34] "Parliamentary Debates," xv., p. 176.
[35] "English in Ireland," i. 180.
[36] Carte's "Ormonde," ii. 357.
[37] Carte's "Ormonde," ii. 329.
[38] "Life and Death of the Irish Parliament," p. 69.
[39] "Irish Commons' Journals," ii. 577.
[40] "Commercial Restraints," p. 20.
[41] "Irish Wool and Woollens," by S. A., p. 67.
[42] "Report from the Select Committee on the Linen Trade of Ireland, 6th June, 1825."
[43] "Life of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford," by Elizabeth Cooper, i., pp. 185, 186. Miss Cooper comments severely "on the stolid unconsciousness of wrongdoing by such a design, the undreamed-of suspicion that such a proposal could be received with any other feeling than that of approbation." It is but just to the memory of Strafford to state that he endeavoured to develop the linen manufacture in Ireland. He sent to Holland for flax seed, and invited Flemish and French artisans to settle in Ireland. "In order to stimulate the new industry, the earl himself embarked in it, and expended not less than £30,000 of his private fortune in the enterprise. It was afterwards made one of the grounds of his impeachment that he had obstructed the industry of the country by introducing new and unknown processes into the manufacture of flax. It was, nevertheless, greatly to the credit of the earl that he should have endeavoured to improve the industry of Ireland by introducing the superior processes employed by foreign artisans, and had he not attempted to turn the improved flax manufacture to his own advantage by erecting it into a personal monopoly, he might have been entitled to regard as a genuine benefactor of Ireland." (Smiles's "Huguenots," p. 126.) Dr. Smiles, in this passage, speaks of the linen manufacture as a "new industry." The "Report from the Select Committee on the Linen Trade of Ireland" states that that trade was "first planted in Ireland by Lord Strafford" (Appendix, p. 6), and Miss Cooper gives him credit "for the establishment of the linen manufacture in Ireland." ("Life of Lord Strafford," i., p. 346.) These statements are not, I think, historically correct. Mr. Lecky shows that, although Lord Strafford stimulated the linen trade, he did not found it. "The linen manufacture may, indeed, be dimly traced far back into Irish history. It is noticed in an English poem in the early part of the fifteenth century. A century later Guicciardini, in his 'Description of the Low Countries,' mentions coarse linen as among the products imported from Ireland to Antwerp. Strafford had done much to encourage it, and after the calamities of the Cromwellian period the Duke of Ormonde had laboured with some success to revive it." ("England in the Eighteenth Century," ii., pp. 211, 212.) See also, for some very valuable remarks on this subject, "Irish Wool and Woollens," pp. 63, 64.
[44] "Irish Wool and Woollens," p. 70. See also Newenham on "The Population of Ireland," pp. 40, 41.
[45] 12 Car. II., c. 4. A duty equal to a prohibition was laid on those goods.
[46] "English Commons' Journals," xii., p. 338.
[47] "English Commons' Journals," xii. 339.
[48] "Irish Commons' Journals," ii., p. 241.
[49] "Irish Commons' Journals," ii., p. 243.
[50] Irish Statutes, 10 Will. III., c. 3.
[51] Subsequent Acts completed this annihilation. "The next Act," says Lord North, after enumerating the Acts mentioned above, "was an Act of the 5th Geo. I., the next the 5th and 12th of the late King (Geo. II.), which last went so far as to prohibit the export of a kind of woollen manufacture called waddings, and one or two other articles excepted out of the 10th and 11th of King William; but these three last Acts swept everything before them." ("Parliamentary Debates," xv. 176, 177.)
[52] "Parliamentary Debates," vol. xiii., 330.
[53] "Parliamentary Debates," vol. xv., 181.
[54] "Irish Affairs," pp. 112, 113.
[55] "English in Ireland," vol. ii., p. 177. Mr. Lecky thus succinctly states the particulars attending the breach of the Linen Compact:—"The main industry of Ireland had been deliberately destroyed because it had so prospered that English manufacturers had begun to regard it as a competitor with their own. It is true, indeed, that a promise was made that the linen and hempen manufacture should be encouraged as a compensation, but even if it had been a just principle that a nation should be restricted by force of law to one or two forms of industry, there was no proportion between that which was destroyed and that which was to be favoured, and no real reciprocity established between the two countries." Mr. Lecky having stated the antiquity of the linen manufacture and its vicissitudes in Ireland, and having mentioned that "in 1700 the value of the export of Irish linen amounted to little more than £14,000," thus proceeds:—"The English utterly suppressed the existing woollen manufacture in Ireland in order to reserve that industry entirely to themselves, but the English and Scotch continued, as usual, their manufacture of linen. The Irish trade was ruined in 1699, but no legislative encouragement was given to the Irish linen manufacture till 1705, when, at the urgent petition of the Irish Parliament, the Irish were allowed to export their white and brown linens, but these only to the British colonies, and they were not permitted to bring any colonial goods in return. The Irish linen manufacture was undoubtedly encouraged by bounties, but not until 1743, when the country had sunk into a condition of appalling wretchedness. In spite of the compact of 1698, the hempen manufacture was so discouraged that it positively ceased. Disabling duties were imposed on Irish sail-cloth imported into England. Irish checked, striped, and dyed linens were absolutely excluded from the colonies. They were virtually excluded from England by the imposition of a duty of 30 per cent., and Ireland was not allowed to participate in the bounties granted for the exportation of these descriptions of linen from Great Britain to foreign countries."—"Eighteenth Century," vol. ii., pp. 211-212. See also, "An Argument for Ireland," by J. O'Connell, M.P., pp. 147-154.
[56] "Parliamentary Debates," vol. xv., 179, 180.
[57] "Commercial Restraints," pp. 229, 230.
[58] See "An Argument for Ireland," p. 161.
[59] "An Argument for Ireland," by J. O'Connell, M.P., p. 161.
[60] Burke on "Irish Affairs," p. 101.
[61] "English in Ireland," vol. i., p. 657.
[62] "Commercial Restraints," pp. 125, 126. See "English Commons' Journals," 22, p. 178. In this summary of the laws enacted by the English Parliament in restraint of Irish trade, I have dealt merely with legislation of a permanent character. "When," says Hely Hutchinson, in 1779, "the commercial restraints of Ireland are the subject, a source of occasional and ruinous restrictions ought not to be passed over. Since the year 1740 there have been twenty-four embargoes in Ireland, one of which lasted three years." "Commercial Restraints," pp. 231, 232. The system of embargoes called forth the indignation of Arthur Young, the celebrated English traveller. The prohibition of woollens, etc., was, he says, at least advantageous to similar manufactures in England, but "in respect to embargoes, even this shallow pretence is wanting; a whole kingdom is sacrificed and plundered, not to enrich England, but three or four London contractors." See also Lecky's "Eighteenth Century," iv., p. 442.