may call them the elements of industry, Mr. Foster states, (p. 8o. of his fpeech publifhed here) that there is a "balance of fupply to Great Britain" of nearly two millions and an half: (See Table A.)-If this were really the cafe, and the trade in fact fo advantageous to Great Britain, I muft agree with any man that there were little danger of Ireland's being deprived of it. I find, however, by the Infpector General's accounts, that instead of this" balance of supply to Britain," this part of the trade is most indifputably a Lofs to her, by a balance of above three hundred thousand pounds: (See Table B.) So that, in fact, Mr. Foster's account, is Two MILLIONS and SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS, wide of the reality. Does the trade appear thus to preponderate with benefits to Britain?

This miftatement arifes from a misconception, in calling articles raw materials, which in reality, are not fuch; nor are they confidered, or ftated as fuch in the official acconnts. Raw aricles are materials which may be wrought into manufactures, and produced in another form. Hides, for inftance, are raw materials, because they are produced in another form, which we call leather: but beef, butter, and provifions, enter into commerce only as fuch, and in no other shape. Mr. Fofter, however, reckons on Irish provifions as raw articles, by which, he favells one account; and he counts on English provifions, cod, ling, herrings &c. as manufactured articles, by which he diminishes the other. And again, he calls Irish linen yarn a raw material; but he counts on English cotton yarn as manufactured goods: yet Mr. Fofter tells us" I have detailed these statements ac"curately from the printed Reports."

However, that we may not be deceived by names of things, or be led astray by a partial view in one branch of our trade, let us examine the whole products, both raw and manufactured of the two countries.

We find on infpecting the public accounts referred to by M Foster, that, on calculating the trade carried on between the

two countries, with their repective Products and Manufactures Ireland gains a balance of almoft THREE MILLIONS AND AN HALF yearly. (See Table C.) Here again, then, the trade does not preponderate with benefits to Britain.

Now let us take another view of the trade, as to all the imports and exports of the two countries and wh at dowe perceive? We find on a fair view given in the public accounts, that there is a balance, on the general Import and Export trade, in favor of Ireland, amounting to above Two MILLIONS GAIN ANNUALLY: (See Table D.)-Here again then, with above two millions lofs before our eyes, trade does not preponderate with benefits to Britain.

་་

the

Further, that we may confider the trade in every poffible fhape, in order to arrive at the whole truth, let us examine the entire trade, revenues, and bounties. And what is the refult? It is proved by the public accounts, that Ireland is a gainer, by a balance of above TWO MILLIONS SEVEN HUNDRED and SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS ANNUALLY. (See Table E.). Now I ask, in every view of this trade, how does it appear according to the official accounts of the Infpector General, that the advantages are, (as Mr. Fofter afferts,) " more on the fide of Britain-and certainly fo much fo, as to put an end to all the foolish threats which have been made, particularly as to our linen trade depending wholly on British bounty, and British difcretion."

༈ ་་་་་ ་

As to the latter part of this affertion on bounties, we shall foon fift the truth.

66

But as to the commerce of the two countries, Mr. Folter cannot make it appear, that the balance is "fo much on the fide of Britain," and the excess of gain prodigious."It is utterly impoffible, according to the official documents. And therefore, his conclufion against an Union falls to the ground, because he has built it on miftatements which exhibit fuch a perverfion of the Public Accounts, as could originate only, I do conceive, in mifconception.

I now come to the linen trade. And here again I find Mr. Fofter deep in errors. Some lines back I quoted his assertion, relative to the linen trade not depending on British Bounties, or British difcretion. And, in page 84, he remarks on bounties,, "when their operation is boasted of by Mr. Pitt, as "having raised our manufacture to its prefent height, he forgets the fact. They took place in 1743, and operated "as the REPORT" (of the Board of Trade) 66 I have men"tioned stated, as TWELVE per cent on British, and six "and an HALF per cent on Irish; the remaining five and an "half compenfating the charges of freight, commiffion, &c. "from Ireland to Britain."

Here, you obferve, it is ftated by Mr. Foster that, while the bounty on British Linens is estimated at twelve per cent, the bounty on Irish Linens is estimated at fix and an half: and, therefore, according to his Report of the Board of Trade, Britain has an advantage over the Irish exporter, equal to five and an half per cent. Now, remark the words of the Report, as they stand precisely in the paffage alluded to by Mr. Fofter. "IRELAND will be able to export this article under the new opening given to her trade, to an advantage over the English exporter equal to five and an half per cent.' Thus, therefore, you fee a direct contradiction to what Mr. Fofter puts before the statement of the Board of Trade. I fhall here explain this matter:-Britain pays twelve per cent. bounty to Irish Linens exported from this country: but the British Merchant, who exports those Irish Linens, is at a charge of five and an half per cent. in Britain, for warehoufing, &c. &c. before he can export them: whereas, the bounty being the fame in Ireland as in Britain, and the Irish merchant not having this expense which the British merchant has here, the Irish one, therefore, has fo much advan

you as

*Copy of the Report of the Lords Commiffioners, contained in the Accounts laid before the Houfe of Lords, Feb. 22, 1799.-See page 16, paragraph 2..

tage (or five and a half per cent.) over the British exporter. So that Mr. Fofter turns the British exporter into an Irish exporter. The former may be called an exporter of Irish linens; but thofe Irif linens receive twelve per cent. bounty.-Can Mr. Fofter deny this? Can he deny that Britain favours Irish linens imported by a protecting duty, alfo, equal to twenty-five per cent.? Whereas all other linens imported, pay this twenty-five per cent.: and all other linens befides British, exported, pay about fix per cent.Confequently, there is an equality of export bounty paid by Britain to Irish and British linens; there is an advantage of five and an half per cent. bounty, in favour of direct exportation from Ireland, against Britain; there is twentyfive per cent. in favour of Ireland, over foreign linens imported; and, if we add twelve per cent. bounty, paid to Irish linens exported, to fix per cent. duty paid by Foreign linens exported, it makes eighteen per cent, in favour of the Irish exports. How, then, can Mr. Fofter fay, that, where there is fuch fupport, there is not dependence-and fuch vo luntary fupport, there is not difcretion? Cannot the British Parliament take away this fupport of bounties and protecting duties from the Irifh linens? If fo, it is difcretionary.-And is not this fupport of bounties and protecting duties, neceffary to the Irish Trade? If fo, it is dependent. But the fact of dependence fhall be further established:--Let us confider, therefore, the operation of the Bounties.

"

E

Mr. Fofter remarked, as we quoted before, that "when "their operation is boasted of by Mr. Pitt, as having raised "our manufactures, he forgets the fact." In order to overturn this affertion, we fhall appeal again to that high and decifive evidence," to which Mr. Fofter himself refers us

* Mr. Fofter fairly ftates according to the Public Ac counts, at 337. 6s. 8d. but it fhould be 251. per cent.

B 4

more than once: I mean that of the Lords Commiffioners for Trade and Plantations.

According to the Report of thofe Lords of Trade, I find, "(page 14) that the Import of Irish Linens into Great Britain increased, between the years 1743 and 1773, from fix millions, to seventeen millions of yards. But the increase of Irish linen, exported under favour of British Bounty, far exceeded in proportion the import during the fame fpace. The quantities exported were, in 1743, above forty thoufand yards; and, in 1773, above two millions of yards. The increase in Import, therefore, was nearly from one to three; and the increase in Export nearly from one to feventy. Thus, we have the fact of increafe clearly and undeniably eftablished. Now, the next fact to be afcertained, is, upon what did this increafe depend? According to the very fame evidence, the Board of Trade, it depended upon the operation of Bounties. Their words are,-(Page 14: paragraph 4) This increase may be attributed to Bounties and Duties."

That a Report of a Board of the Lords of Trade is "decifive evidence," every man must agree with Mr. Fofter; and, without meaning any difrefpect to this gentleman, I certainly conceive them more competent, and more likely to be impartial on this point, than Mr. Fofter, or any man circumftanced as he is. And, therefore, according to their judgment, and their teftimony, I must believe that Mr. Fofter either mifconceived, and therefore miftated, or elfeforgot the fact.

Befide, fince it is to their Report he applies on different points of the linen trade, he cannot confequently refift the teftimony of that Report, ftrongly and evidently confuting

But if we mark the proportion of increase up to 1799in IMPORTS, it is from one to fix, and in EXPORTS from one, to one hundred and fifty: The number of yards in the former increase, was from fix, to thirty-feven millions; and the latter from forty thoufand, to fix millions

།