Having ftated the articles of which the account No. 3, is made up, I again fay, that it is impoffible for any man to point out the articles of manufacture, for which Mr. Foster has taken credit to the amount of £970,000, under the head of colonial manufactures. But Mr. Fofter ftates, that he includes in this fum all Eaft India and colonial produce. Now I afk, how is it that he can take upon him to give credit to Britain for the produce of the Eaft and Weft Indies, including the article of tea, to the amount of £67,887, wh ch is the growth and produce of China, and not of any British colony, and at the fame time deny to Ireland credit for her provifions? How does he diftinguish between their articles of confumption, fuch as tea, coffee, currants, pepper, rum, tobacco, and our articles of beef, pork, bacon and butter, between their rice and our corn? Can he argue that tea, an article of confumption, the produce of China, is a manufacture of Britain, and that beef, pork, butter, &c. are not manufactures of Ireland? But he himself fays, that if the articles in the account No. 3, are not manufactures actually, they may be deemed fo, on account of the employ of labour in the colony, and in the fhipping: Is there no labour in the various proceffes of curing provifions? Is there no labour then in agriculture, in the raifing of corn, or in converting it into flour, oatmeal, malt, &c.? Or is there no ufe of shipping in fending corn or provifions to Britain? Mr. Fofter infifts peremptorily, that the only article of manufacture exported from Ireland is linen; he also states provifions as a raw material, and all this for the pur pofe of making a balance upon the article of manufacture exported in favour of Britain, which he could not otherwife have done, even by the addition of the £970,000 of colonial produce, which he had no right to introduce. But if any man can doubt for a moment, whether beef, butter, pork, bacon, and corn, are manufactures, let him advert to Mr. Fofter's fpeech in page 106, where ftating Mr. Adam Smith's opinion, that the union of Scotland did not promote the trade or manufacture of that country, he quotes Mr. Smith's words in 1775, "that of all commercial advantages which Scotland has derived from the Union, the rife in the price of cattle, is perhaps the greateft," on which Mr Foster makes this remark-" The live cattle, on which we have laid duties to check their export." Now, for what reafon fhould we check their export? Evidently, because we looked E leoked upon live cattle as a raw material, the exporting of which deprived Ireland of the numerous advantages arifing from the flaughtering and manufacturing of them. In order to judge of thefe advantages, let it be confidered what a number of perfons and trades are employed in the making and exporting of butter; the flaughterin, making up, and exporting of beef, pork, and bacon. I fhall enumerate a few of the proceffes neceffary to be gone through. There is the importing of falt, ftaves, and iron; the manufacturing of hoops and cafks; the falting and curing the beef, pork, and bacon; making and falting the butter; the making them up in cafks, the coopering of the cafks; the tanning and dreffing the hides; the working up the leather in all the branches of trade in which it is employed; the making of soap and candles of the tallow; the working of the horns and hoofs to their proper ufes, &c. raifing of corn, plough. ing, fowing, reaping, ftacking, threshing, grinding, making into flour, meal or malt, into bread, bifcuit, &c. or the exporting of it, and the shipping neceffarily employed therein, all of which, and many other circumstances not ftated, are fully fufficient to convince any man, not only that provifions are manufactures in themselves, but that many other manufactures depend upon them. Thus we see what Mr. Fofter calls accurately detailing his fatements from the printed accounts of Mr. Irving, which fortunately fell into his hands. Mr. Irving states the amount of the value of English and Irish products and manufactures imported into and exported from each country, and makes a great balance in favour of Ireland; Mr. Fofter, by cutting off at once above one half of the account, makes a fall balance in favour of Britain. Mr. Irving ftates our provifions as manufactures, and makes them a part of that balance; Mr. Fofter makes our provifions raw materials. Mr. Irving ftates the produce of the Eaft and West Indies as foreign merchandize; Mr. Fofter ftiles them by the name of colonial manufactures: and adds them to the amount of British Manufactures, having at the fame time cut off one half of our own, in order to give a balance in favour of Britain in the article of manufactures. Mr. Irving fuppofes that Ireland has fome advantage, by drawing from England annually no leis a fum than 2,910,724 by the fale of its provifions; while Mr. Fofter, by ingenioufly changing the names of things, converting our provifions into raw materials, and new chriftening them by the name of of articles of prime neceffity, would perfuade us that we were not reaping an advantage by the bringing into this country annually 2,910,7247. but on the contrary, conferring an high obligation on Britain, by permitting her to purchase our provifions to fuch an amount. A man would really be led to imagine, from Mr. Fofter's mode of ftating this argument, that Ireland made a prefent of thefe articles of prime neceffity to England, and that England could not poffibly do without themt. Mr. Foster may have forgotten, but I believe the landed gentlemen and the graziers of Ireland do not forget, that it is but a very few years fince this country was allowed the liberty of conferring this obligation on England,-I mean, of fending our provifions thither; and yet that country exifted without them to us the confequence of that liberty has been, the raifing the prices of the produce of our lands to treble of what they were before; the bringing into Ireland in ready money annually the immenfe fum of 2,910,7241.-enriching the merchant,-highly increafing the profits of the tenant,-and adding exceedingly to the income of the landed gentlemen, and the general wealth of the Kingdom. Mr. Irving ftates every branch of trade by its proper name, and takes credit for it under its own proper head; Mr. Fofter gives new names to things, and takes credit for them juft as it fuits the convenience of his arguments. Upon the whole, I think, I have fhewn that Mr. Fofter's ftatements of the trade and intercourfe between Great Britain and Ireland, are neither fair in themselves, nor truly detailed from Mr. Irving's printed accounts. Mr. Fofter having ftated, page 82, "That in our commercial "intercourse with Great Britain, the benefits are mutual to "both countries, more fo to England than to Ireland perhaps," I fhall, in order to fhew how that matter really stands, ftate very shortly from Mr. Irving's account, No. 17, the trade of Great Britain with all the world; fhewing what proportion of it fhe carries on with Ireland, and what with the rest of the world; and then, that the people of Ireland may be made acquainted with the real ftate of their trade. with all nations, I fhall give a statement of the import and export trade of Ireland with all the world; her trade with Great Britain fingly, and her joint trade with Great Britain and her E 2 Note. It appears from Lord Auckland's speech, page 35, that the supply of beef which we fend to England, including that for the navy, is less than gge-third of what is annually fold in Smithfield, London. her colonies; fhewing what proportion of her commerce The carries on with Great Britain, what with the colonies, what with Great Britain and the colonies conjointly, and what with the rest of the world, on a feven years average; taken from the custom-houfe books of Ireland, and valued according to the old cuftom-house rates : "An account of the total annual value of the Imports into "and Exports from Great Britain, on an average of four years, to the 5th January, 1799, diftinguishing the Imports "from, and Exports to 'reland, from those to and from the "reft of the world, extracted from Mr. Irving's account, "No. 17, and rated according to the old rates of the Cuf "tom-house. "Total value of Imports into Britain, £23,293,612 2,812,383 "Value of Imports from the world, Ire"land excepted, Ire-} "Total value of Exports from Britain, "Total value of Exports to Ireland, "Value of Exports to the world, Ireland "excepted," } £27,329,792 By this account it appears that Britain imports from Ireland about of her imports, and that the exports to Ireland about of her exports. Let this ftatement be compared with that which imediately follows, and then it will be feen in whofe favour the benefit of the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland runs, and which country could beft do without the affiftance of the other : The exports from Ireland to all the world. for feven years, to Lady-day 1797, are valued at The average of each year amounts to £34,394,899 4,913,557 3,909,946 £1,003,611 Seven years average export to all the rest of the world, From this account it appears, that the exports from Ireland to Great Britain alone, amount to of her whole exports. The |