and other articles. The weaving branch is certainly a very material branch of commerce, but other objects also have their weight.

Here Mr. Gardiner obviated many objections which he said had been made to his measure. It is not, said he, calculated to divide, but to unite the two countries. The people of England will think it no cause of enmity with us, that we follow their example. She adopted protecting duties, because she thought it her interest....let us act the same part....what's good for one, must be good for the other.

it

The measure is no opposition to government. I never made my business to introduce any thing for the purpose of embarrassing government. On the contrary, I thought it my duty to support them when right. I think it also my duty to admonish them of their error when wrong. Government ought to be informed of the grievances of the people.

This measure has not been brought forward irregularly....it is grounded on the report of a committee, and the petitions of the people. I confess, sir, I am strongly biassed in its favour. The despondency and distress of this country, together with the justice and expediency of the measure itself, must make every gentleman its friend. Who can behold so many thousands of his fellow-creatures struggling with calamities, almost insupportable by humanity, and not be inclined to give relief? The misfortune is not particular....it is universal....not confined to Dublin, it extends to Cork, Limerick, Waterford, the Queen's county, and every part of the kingdom where the woollen manufacture is carried on....not limited to even the woollen, but affecting every infant manufacture in this country.

With respect to the poverty and wretchedness of this miserable description of our fellow-creatures, I think it unnecessary to use a single word. Gentlemen cannot but know the reality of this fact already it is impossible to go through the streets without meeting testimonies that this assertion is but too well founded. If, however, gentlemen chuse to dispute a thing so selfevident, I am ready to produce witnesses of character at your bar, to put it beyond dispute.

If gentlemen wish to judge fairly, it is right to wave theory and speculation, and confine their attention to the different effects of the different modes adopted in Great Britain and Ireland. They will perceive that the long depression of this country is owing to her want of protection for her trade. In England, to what is owing the great degree of power and wealth she has attained, but to protecting duties?

Now, sir, I shall enter on the main part of the business, and let me entreat gentlemen to be free from prejudice, to divest themselves of every bias. I do not mean to proceed on specu

lation, but to reason from facts, and the ties of policy of the two kingdoms. England has flourished from adopting protecting duties, and Ireland has sunk by a neglect of them. Woollens

were always the staple commodity of this country as well as of England. It was so far back as Edward III. in whose reign acts of parliament were passed, in which we find clauses for protecting the trade of Ireland. At every period before 1698, we enjoyed every advantage of a free country: we had nothing then to contend with, as no jealousy existed in the breast of England before the last-mentioned period. Our trade was guaranteed by Magna Charta; our exports acknowledged by that venerable statute....no treaty was made in which we were not nominally or virtually included. Antecedent to the year 1698, our exports were double our imports, and the number of shipping almost doubled in the ten preceding years. At that period the balance of trade was exceedingly in favour of Ireland, being no less than 224,000l. a year. If we consider the difficulties this country laboured under in those days, and the comparative value of money then and now, this will be found an enormous balance. When Ireland exhibited nothing but a continued scene of disturbance, disunion, tumult, and frequently of civil wars within herself, to what are we to attribute her advantages in commerce but to her protecting duties, her geographical situation, and industry?

When William III. came to the throne of these kingdoms, he laid several unjust and pernicious restrictions on the trade of Ireland, in order to gratify England, which began to grow jealous of our prosperity; in other respects he may have served this kingdom; he may have been wise and good; but certainly these unjust and destructive restrictions, together with other partialities, manifested by him against us on all occasions, are more than a counterpoise to every good he has done this country.

The first stab given in his reign to our rising trade was in 1698, when a corrupt majority in this house laid a duty on cloths exported to England. Some spirited and patriotic members standing up to oppose this measure, it was defended on the ground of being an experiment, and that it would continue only for three years, but was in the year following made perpetual. Let us mark the consequences. The manufacturers, no longer able to find subsistence at home, emigrated, where they were received with open arms. The French, notwithstanding every exertion, had been unable to establish the woollen manufactures, until they procured Irish wool to mix with their own, and Irishmen to weave it. They then, conscious of the advantages of protecting their trade, laid additional duties on the importation of English cloths. The event soon confirmed with what pro

priety they adopted these protecting duties; they in a short time manufactured enough for the home market, and by raising from time to time, the protecting duties, at length to a prohibition, are enabled not only to rival great Britain, but to underself her in every market in Europe.

Before the last mentioned reign, it was as usual to recommend from the throne, at the opening of every session, the woollen manufacture, to the consideration of parliament, as of late it has been to recommend the linen manufacture, or any other branch of trade. Our journals, sir, are full of such recommendations.

Another argument in favour of this proposition can be drawn from the great benefits this country derived, from a power obtained by James, Duke of Ormond, of prohibiting the importation of Scotch manufactures. The protection was obtained against Scotland, and not England, because we were not then afraid of the latter. The utility of this duty was so great, as to give in our favour a balance, notwithstanding the pernicious effects of the plantation laws, and the other unfair restrictions of King William's reign, on our trade. Have not we, therefore, a right to expect the same salutary consequences from the adoption of a like measure now?

Let no man say that England is so insensible of her own interest as to be averse from this measure. England, from unhappy experience, is convinced of the pernicious effects of her impolicy. The emigration of the Irish manufacturers in the reign of King William, is not the only instance that has taught that nation the ruinous effects of restrictive laws. Our own remembrance has furnished a sad instance of the truth of this assertion....furnished it in the American war. America was lost by Irish emigrants.... These emigrations are fresh in the recollection of every gentleman in this house; and when the unhappy differences took place, I am assured, from the best authority, the major part of the American army was composed of Irish; and that the Irish language was as commonly spoken in the American ranks as English. I am also informed, it was their valour determined the contest; so that England not only lost a principal protection of her woollen trade in Europe, but also had America detached from her by force of Irish emigrants.

Mr. Gardiner, after dwelling some time on the pernicious effects of the act of William III. shewed by what progress importations had arisen, from an average sum of 14,000l. to the enormous sum of 836,000/. in the year 1778.

In 1779, this country, no longer able to support the pernicious effects of the oppressions under which she laboured, undertook a great measure. We spoke out, and demanded a free trade,

It is but justice to gentlemen, it is but justice to the nation, that they were unanimous, and persevered. England acted wisely and justly on the occasion, and restored us our right. But of what use will this free trade be....will it be any thing but a name, if we do not seize the advantages of it by promoting it? It is impossible to do so, unless we have an opportunity of supplying our home consumption, and exporting the redundancy. It is impossible to undersell other nations in foreign markets, if undersold in our own. While our ports are open to the exportation of raw materials, and the importation of British manufactures, can we expect to reap any benefit from the extension of our commerce? Let us turn our thoughts to the article of cotton, and we shall find great quantities imported, and not a single yard exported. The very same might be affirmed of many other manufactures.

England, so early as the reign of Edward III. perceived the necessity of protecting her woollens. When a law was enacted to prevent wearing foreign manufactures; with respect to Ireland, however, she was not then considered as coming under the denomination of foreign. The habits of intimacy and connec tion between the two countries, prevented England from excluding Ireland, when she excluded the rest of the world. Here are two points proved, the adoption of protecting duties, and that we were not considered a foreign nation with respect to England. But the manufactures of England were then in a progressive state, and it appears that the home market was then the principal object in imposing a duty on the importation of woollens. In the same reign it must be admitted, a duty was laid on bay yarn, but this was only to raise a revenue to the crown by dispensations. England flourished, but flourished from a different cause....from the protecting duties, which procured her a home market; she soon far outstripped other nations in her manufactures; but in the reign of Elizabeth, the rest of Europe, perceiving the good effects of the measure to England, began to lay on protecting duties also. France laid a duty of half a livre on cloth imported; this was shortly after augmented to a livre, and so by degrees to actual prohibition. The Dutch followed the example. The effect of those protections on the manufactures of England was quickly perceptible.

In the year 1616, the exports decreased 160,000 in some time after, the balance was found to be more considerably against her; her imports being above a million, and her exports not quite 300,000 a year. She then found it necessary to recur to fresh protecting duties, and to prohibit the importation of broad silk. She also saw it necessary to prohibit the wear of India goods. These protecting duties have ever since been accumu

lating, and Ireland included, as well as other countries. They have been constantly, as far as respected Ireland, increased during the reign of George I. and II. but it must be confessed, no such thing has been done in the reign of George III. On the contrary, more has been procured for this country, during that period, than since our first connection.

Before the protection of her manufactures, the balance was considerably against her; the French importations were computed at an average to amount to 1,500,000l. per annum. Afterwards, by means of protecting duties, instead of importing, her exports of woollens amounted to 5,000,000 yards. Her home consumption to 6,000,000; making together 11,000,000. So that she arrived to such a summit of greatness as no country since the fall of the Roman empire, ever attained. By means of the wealth procured by manufactures, she was in the year 1763, able to impose the law in Europe.

In the late unsuccessful war, we have seen her maintain a struggle no country in the world would be able to maintain but herself. We see her now, after it, great, feared, and respected, and that under the burthen of an enormous national debt, which no other nation would be able to bear.

Having, on real matter of fact, shewn the progress and success of the manufactures of the two countries; having shewn how England has risen, and Ireland declined; having shewn that her system of policy is the cause of her grandeur, permit me to draw your attention to the difference of situations. In England, the lowest peasant wears good broad cloth, feeds well, and is lodged comfortably. The face of the country presents a view of good habitations, and communicates an unspeakable pleasure to every man of humanity. I feel a warmth whenever I see and contemplate its beauty; but when I reflect on the misery of my own unhappy country, that I left behind me, I sink on the comparison. In England, all is joy, ease and content. It may be said, in the scripture-phrase of that country," the hills and vallies sing with joy." Let us now for a moment view the wretched condition of the miserable Irishman.

The Irishman, sir, feeds the cattle whose flesh he is debarred from tasting. As to clothes, he has scarcely any. As for habitation, he has perhaps, some miserable hovel, whither an Englishman would not venture to turn his beast. Here he, with an unhappy wife, and wretched offspring, must endeavour to drag out existence, half starved, and half famished with cold. What a distinction, alas! between beings of the same species.

When, sir, we thus view the different conditions of two people, it is natural to enquire into the cause of this difference. Are Irishmen less fitted by nature to earn a livelihood than English