The Commercial Restraints of Ireland

by John Hely-Hutchinson

There cannot be a stronger proof of the want of resources in any country, than that a debt of so small an amount should alarm the persons entrusted with the government of it. That those apprehensions were well founded, will appear from the repeated distresses of Ireland, from time to time, for many years afterwards. In 1721, the speech from the throne,[169] and the addresses to the king and to the Lord Lieutenant, state, in the strongest terms, the great decay of her trade, and the very low and impoverished state to which she was reduced.

That this proceeded, in some measure, from calamities and misfortunes which affected the neighbouring kingdoms, is true: but their effects on Ireland, little interested in the South Sea project, could not be considerable. The poverty under which she laboured arose principally from her own situation. The Lord Lieutenant says there is ground to hope that in this session such remedies may be applied as will restore the nation to a flourishing condition; and the Commons return the king thanks for giving them that opportunity to consider of the best methods for reviving their decayed trade and making them a flourishing and happy people.

But it is a melancholy proof of the desponding state of this kingdom, that no law whatever was then proposed for encouraging trade or manufactures, or to follow the words of the address, for reviving trade, or making us a flourishing people, unless that for amending the laws as to butter and tallow casks deserves to be so called. And why? Because it was well understood by both Houses of Parliament that they had no power to remove those restraints which prohibited trade and discouraged manufactures, and that any application for that purpose would at that time have only offended the people on one side of the channel without bringing any relief to those on the other. The remedy proposed by Government, and partly executed, by directing a commission under the Great Seal for receiving voluntary subscriptions[170] in order to establish a bank, was a scheme to circulate paper without money; and considering that it came so soon after the South Sea Bubble had burst, it is more surprising that it should have been at first applauded,[171] than that it was, in the same session, disliked, censured, and abandoned.[172] The total inefficacy of the remedy proved however the inveteracy of the disease, and furnishes a farther proof of the desperate situation of Ireland, when nothing could be thought of for its relief, but that paper should circulate without money, trade, or manufactures.[173]

In the following session of 1723, it appears that the condition of our manufacturers, and of the lowest classes of our people, must have been distressed, as the Duke of Grafton, in his speech from the throne, particularly recommends to their consideration the finding out of some method for the better employing of the poor;[174] and though the debt of the nation was no more than £66,318 8s. 3¼d.,[175] and was less than in the last session,[176] yet the Commons thought it necessary to present an address to the king, to give such directions as he, in his great goodness, should think proper, to prevent the increase of the debt of the nation. This address was presented[177] by the House, with its Speaker, and passed nem. con., and was occasioned by the distressed state of the country, and by their apprehensions that it might be further exhausted by the project of Wood’s halfpence: it could not be meant as any want of respect to their Lord Lieutenant, as they had not long since returned him thanks for his wise conduct and frugality in not increasing the debt of the nation.[178] This address of the Commons, and the Lord Lieutenant’s recommendation for the better employing the poor, seems to be explained by a petition of the woollen drapers, weavers, and clothiers of the city of Dublin (the principal seat of the woollen manufacture of Ireland) in behalf of themselves and the other drapers, weavers, and clothiers of this kingdom, praying relief in relation to the great decay of trade in the woollen manufacture.[179]

But this address had no effect; the debt of the nation in the ensuing session of 1725, was nearly doubled.[180] In the speeches from the throne, in 1727, Lord Carteret takes notice of our success in the linen trade, and yet observes, in 1729, that the revenue had fallen short, and that thereby a considerable arrear was due to the establishment.

But notwithstanding the success of the linen manufacture,[181] Ireland was in a most miserable condition. The great scarcity of corn had been so universal in this kingdom in the years 1728 and 1729, as to expose thousands of families to the utmost necessities, and even to the danger of famine; many artificers and housekeepers having been obliged to beg for bread in the streets of Dublin. It appeared before the House of Commons that the import of corn for one year and six months, ending the 29th day of September, 1729, amounted in value to the sum of £274,000, an amazing sum compared with the circumstances of the kingdom at that time! and the Commons resolved that public granaries would greatly contribute to the increasing of tillage, and providing against such wants as have frequently befallen the people of this kingdom, and hereafter may befall them, unless proper precautions shall be taken against so great a calamity.

The great scarcity which happened in the years ’28 and ’29, and frequently before and since, is a decisive proof that the distresses of this kingdom have been occasioned by the discouragement of manufactures. If the manufacturers have not sufficient employment, they cannot buy the superfluous produce of the land; the farmers will be discouraged from tilling, and general distress and poverty must ensue. The consequences of the want of employment among manufacturers and labourers must be more fatal in Ireland than in most other countries; of the numbers of her people it has been computed that 1,887,220 live in houses with but one hearth, and may therefore be reasonably presumed to belong for the most part to those classes.

In the year 1731[182] there was a great deficiency in the public revenue, and the national debt had considerably increased. The exhausted kingdom lay under great difficulties by the decay of trade, the scarcity of money, and the universal poverty of the country, which the Speaker represents[183] in very affecting terms, in offering the money bills for the royal assent, and adds, “that the Commons hope, from his Majesty’s goodness, and his Grace’s free and impartial representation of the state and condition of this kingdom, that they may enjoy a share of the blessings of public tranquillity by the increase of their trade, and the encouragement of their manufactures.”

But in the next session, of 1733, they are told in the speech from the throne, what this share was to be. The Lord Lieutenant informs them that the peace cannot fail of contributing to their welfare, by enabling them to improve those branches of trade and manufactures[184] which are properly their own, meaning the trade and manufacture of linen. Whether this idea of property has been preserved inviolate will hereafter appear.

The years ’40 and ’41 were seasons of great scarcity, and in consequence of the want of wholesome provisions great numbers of our people perished miserably, and the speech from the throne recommends it to both Houses to consider of proper measures to prevent the like calamity for the future. The employment of the poor and the encouragement of tillage are the remedies proposed[185] by the Lord Lieutenant and approved of by the Commons, but no laws for those purposes were introduced, and why they were not affords matter for melancholy conjecture. They could not have been insensible of the miseries of their fellow-creatures, many thousands of whom were lost in those years, some from absolute want, and many from disorders occasioned by bad provisions. Why was no attempt made for their relief? Because the Commons knew that the evil was out of their reach, that the poor were not employed because they were discouraged by restrictive laws from working up the materials of their own country, and that agriculture could not be encouraged where the lower classes of the people were not enabled by their industry to purchase the produce of the farmer’s labour.