bility, much less the impoffibility, of our having a confiderable iron trade in Ireland; even should our collieries not be worked, so as to give us a fhare in the making of iron from the ore for if we can import bar iron cheaper than they can in England, which the difference in duty of 21. 85. 8d. a ton, will enable us to do, and if we have labour, provifions, and taxes, fo much lower than they have in England, I cannot fee the impediment to our having a confiderable share of the iron manufacture.

The city of London is known to carry on a very great trade in iron manufactures, and yet no man will deny, that the article of coals is much higher in London than it is in Dublin, and that labour, provisions, and taxes, are also beyond comparison higher. Why then fhould not Ireland contend with London in this manufacture ?

It may be argued, that although England pays on importation of iron a higher duty than Ireland does, by 21. 85. 8d. yet by making a quantity of iron equal to the quantity fhe imports, on which the pays no duty, she will be enabled thereby to underfell us.

This argument is best answered by stating the price of iron in the British market, which is as follows:

From this statement it is clear, that although England pays no duty on her home made iron, yet it is beyond comparifon dearer than imported iron; and, therefore, that her home made iron cannot enable her to underfell Ireland.

The fourth and laft article of manufacture, which Mr. Fofter afferts that Ireland cannot carry on, is the Pottery; let us fee what were the opinions of the British manufacturers in 1785, delivered through Mr. Wedgewood.

They declared, that the Irish had already many advantages over them, and that if the fyftem then proposed took place, it would give them a certainty of fupplying their own country, and a chance of fharing the English market.

The value of this particular manufacture confifts almost wholly in labour; when, therefore, the cheapness of labour in Ireland, in comparison to what it is in England,

land, is confidered, and when to this is added that the raw materials are alfo cheaper, in nearly an equal proportion, the advantage of Ireland over England in this manufacture becomes decided and incontrovertible.

The raw materials for this manufacture, are clay and flint ftones, both of which Ireland has in abundance, and of the best quality, and if fhe had not, fhe could be fupplied with thefe articles from the fame places from which the Staffordshire manufacturers are fupplied, and at half the price they coft when laid down at their potteries. They are now obliged to bring them from feveral diftant parts of England, from near the Land's end in Cornwall, and along different parts of the coaft, from Falmouth, Teignmouth, Exeter, Poole, Gravefend, and the Norfolk coaft, on the one fide; and from Wales, Biddeford, and the Irifh coaft, on the other fide, to Hull and Liverpool, from whence they are again to be conveyed to the potteries, fituated in one of the moft inland parts of England.

Ireland has these materials within herself, and conveniently fituated. It appears from the evidence of Mr. Evans, the engineer, given to our Houfe of Commons in 1783, as before mentioned, that on the banks of the "Grand Canal, between Lough Allen and Dublin, and "about thirty miles from the latter, there was flint for "making flint ware, clays for potteries, and pipe clay for "making Stafford fhire ware."

We have befides thofe clays mentioned by Mr. Evans, excellent clay upon the eftate of Mr. Hamerton, near Clonmell; quantities of which have been fent to England, as I am informed for the purpofe of making earthen-ware and tobacco pipes.

We have alfo both clay and flint of the best quality near Belfaft, where I understand a confiderable manufacture of a ware, fimilar to that of Staffordshire, is now carrying on.

Coals are then the only article wanting. Belfaft lies moft convenient to Whitehaven and the Cumberland collieries, to all the Scotch collieries, and to Ballycastle; there is water carriage now to the place on the Grand Canal defcribed by Mr. Evans; there is alfo the greateft abundance of turf; and whenever the navigation of the canals fhall be carried tó Lough Allen, it will furnish a fituation where all the ma terials can be had much cheaper than in Staffordshire.

It was Mr. Brierly's opinion, upon his examination in 185, that it was not owing to the cheapnefs of fuel, or materials,

materials, that the English pottery owed its fuperiority be to the ingenuity of its workmen. And Mr. Wedgewood ftated the great fource of danger to the English pottery to be, the certainty of the emigration of their workmen and artizans to Ireland, where provifions were fo much cheaper, and taxes fo much lower; and he fortified his affertion by the inftance of the emigration of the glafs manufacturers to Ireland, in confequence of which that article has already been brought to fuch perfection, as to enable us, not only to maintain a fuccefsful competition with England in foreign markets, but actually to send glafs into England.

The Glafs manufacture is of the nature of the Pottery, and depends equally upon the plenty and cheapness of firing; and therefore, if the glafs manufacture is established in Ireland, and in the city of Dublin, where coals are dearer than in any other part, what should prevent our having alfo a pottery?

When all this is confidered, and alfo that the carriage, freight, lofs by breakage, and the duties upon Staffordshire ware imported, amount to 40 per cent. I can fee no reason to subscribe to the affertion, that the pottery manufacture cannot be carried on to advantage in Ireland.

Having gone through thofe obfervations which occurred upon the question, whether or no Ireland could carry on an advantageous trade in the articles of woollen, cotton, iron, and pottery; I come now to confider the statements made by Mr. Fofter, page 82, to prove "that in our commercial "intercourse with Britain, the benefits are mutual to both "countries; more fo to England than to Ireland perhaps ; "but certainly fo as to put an end to all the foolish threats "which have been made, more particularly as to our linen "trade depending wholly on British bounty and British dif

"scretion."

He afferts that he will prove, "that in our commercial "intercourse with England we are not at all dependent on "her, and that the profperity of our linen trade does not "lie at the will of the British parliament; that it does not "reft upon its bounty, its difcretion, or its liberality. He "laments that the fubject should have been introduced; "that it was not wife in private life for two friends to enter "into a detail of their mutual powers of benefit and injury,

to taunt with obligations, and boast of their means to vex "and harass-much less is it fo between nations.

But as "Mr.

"Mr. Pitt has began, he, Mr. Fofter, will go through the "whole fate of our intercourfe."

In order to prove these affertions, Mr. Fofter makes feveral statements, which I fhall now beg leave to examine.

The first statement is in page 76. He there fays, " If "I were to take the general fate of the intercourse from "the Custom-Houfe books, according to their accuftomed "valuation, it would appear

£2,870,985

That Great Britain, on an average of 37 years, to 1799, imported annually from Ire- £2,870,98€ land, to the value of

and that she exported to Ireland

Leaving a balance against Britain of

}

2,775,330

£95,651

Mr. Fofter draws no inference from this statement, he gives it, and there he leaves it, to impress the public with the opinion, that in the intercourfe between the two countries, the balance in favour of Ireland was but £95,651; but, in my opinion, this is by no means a fair statement. The thing he undertook to fhew was, which country benefits moft by the mutual importing and exporting of the products and manufactures of the one into the other, and which country would be most injured by the ceafing of fuch intercourfe. In fuch an investigation, foreign products or manufactures ought not to be introduced, as each country could obtain them from the original place of their growth or production. Mr. Fofter has included them in this account, in order to reduce the balance of trade in favour of Ireland; but the fair statement would be to fet the British products and manufactures against those of Ireland, when the account would ftand thus:

Irish products and manufactures exported

into Britain on an average of 3 years to £2,821,910

1799,

British Do. exported to Ireland,

Balance in favour of Ireland,

1,589,478

£1,232,432

Having ftated this account, in the way I think most fair, I fhall fubjoin an account of the trade in foreign articles between the two countries, and shall refer the reader to the articles of which it confifts, that he may be able to form a somplete judgment upon the whole of the fubject.

Foreign

Foreign products and merchandize exported from Britain into Ireland, on an average of 3 years, to 1799,

Do. imported into Britain by Ireland,

Balance in favour of Britain,

185,)

1,185,861

49,07 £1,136,790

By looking into the account, No. 6, annexed to this pamphlet, the reader will find, that of the articles of which this balance confifts, no lefs a fum than £624,752, ari es from articles of raw materials for our manufactures; and on the other hand, by examining the account No. 4, he will find, that of the fum of £49,071, the value of articles exported from Ireland to Britain, not being of the product or manufacture of Ireland, to the amount of £18,535, confifts of raw materials.

Mr. Foster then states, that fortunately an authentic paper had come to his hands, viz. "the accounts delivered by "Mr. Irving, the Inspector General of British trade, to "the English Parliament. In thefe papers, the va ues are "eftimated by the current prices of the articles inftead of "the Cuftom Houfe rates; and these current prices are "afcertained by the declarations of the merchants, on "goods exported to other countries under the Convoy " A&t."

These accounts, which were furnished to the House of Lords of England, have stated the trade between the two countries, in every light which can give trùe information; and Mr. Irving, who furnished them, an officer of the first character, for ability, diligence and integrity, has, for the fatisfaction of the public, ftated this trade, not only as it ftands upon the old valuations contained in the Custom House Books, but also upon the real value of the articles imported and exported, as they ftand in the prices current of the day.

Mr. Fofter has, however, I think, made a very unfair infinuation, when he fays, "we will not enquire why this mode was adopted now;" intimating that the old mode of eftimating by the Custom House rates, was laid afide for fome improper purpose; but that furely cannot be the cafe, because Mr. Irving has not only given the prices current, but also the Cuftom-Houfe rates, fo that every man may estimate either by the one or the other mode, as he choses; but furely, as Mr. Fofter himself ftates, "it is better to argué for prefent expedience, on the prefent real fate of trade, ** than

D