fhould be remarked, that the export was allowed only during a small part of the year 1780.

Old drapery exported from Ireland, year ending the 25th of March,

New drapery exported from Ireland, year

ending the 25th of March,

And as a farther proof of the increase of the woollen manufacture in Ireland, it appears that the export of wool, woollen, and worsted yarn had decreased above half. The average export of the laft, which is the principal article, for feven years, ending the 25th of March, 1770, was 142,890 ftones. The average of the fame number

of

of years, ending the 25th of March, 1783, was 66,679 ftones.

It should be remarked, that at the time Ireland, on the opening of her ports for exportation of woollens, made an effort to fend the above quantity to foreign markets, the increased her imports of woollens. This helps to fhew an advantage in taking away that unrea fonable reftraint, and should convince us, that the more Ireland exports, the greater her neceffity will be of importing from England. Ireland was enabled to work up her wool in those articles which best suited it, and to the greatest advantage, for foreign markets, inftead of employing it to disadvantage, and increased the importation of fuch woollen articles as England could furnish cheaper than fhe could make them.

On an average of four years, from 1763 to 1767, Ireland imported,

New drapery,
Old drapery,

Yards.

281,557

196,047

On

On an average of four years, ending the 25th of March, 1783, Ireland imported,

But the increase of the importation of the principal article, new drapery, was only about one-fifth of the increafed manufacture for exportation.

Increased quantity of new drapery

imported,

New drapery exported, year ending the 25th of March, 1783,

Yards.

108,538

538,061

And the export of the latter article, the fame year, exceeded the import near 120,000 yards. And farther it fhould be remarked, that, in the very year when fo large a quantity of Irish woollens were able to meet British at foreign market, a duty was asked on British to enable Irish woollens to meet them at the markets of Ireland.

It should be obferved, however, that the manufacture of woollens was not fo much increased as appcars from the ftated export of the four laft years: a certain proportion

of

of those articles, which now appear in the exports, were smuggled from Ireland previous to 1778, at which time the prohibition to export was taken off with respect to the British plantations in America, or the Weft Indies, or any British fettlement on the coaft of Africa. Before that time, woollens could not be mentioned in the Custom-house state of the exports of Ireland; but now that the export is opened to all the world, by the acts of 1780 and 1781, it is found that two-thirds of her woollens go to Portugal, to which place fhe probably fent nearly as much before. The importation, however, of most of those articles into Portugal, both then and now, was, and is, supposed to be prohibited by Portugal: and it should farther be remarked, that as woollens are not fubject to duties on export, the vanity, and other motives of merchants may have induced them to enter greater quantities for exportation than they have really fent.

But fome of the violent friends of Ireland fay, we will have non-importation agreements, protecting duties, prohibitions, &c.

If

If you don't take our linens, we will not only refuse British, but also foreign and colonial commodities from Great Britain, and the two laft amount to near 8co,oool. yearly *.

It will be answered, that Great Britain gives to the principal manufacture of Ireland every advantage in every part of her dominions, and may most reasonably expect that her own principal manufacture should, in return, have equal advantages in Ireland, which they have not. The linens Great Britain takes from Ireland are five times the value of

*Some of these pretended friends of Ireland, who, whether actuated by an honeft and zealous ignorance, or by worse motives, are likely to prove her greatest enemies, have been driven, by the abfurdity of their pretenfion, into the most contradictory mode of reafoning: for, on fome occafions, they treat as a feparate kingdom, not only independent, but utterly unconnected; on others, they claim as a part of the empire, entitled (according to an inaufpicious phrafe) to a reciprocity of equal rights. For the fake of fairnefs in argument, it is to be wifhed they would chufe one predicament or the other. The attempt fo blend both characters, is not calculated to promote either candour or perfpicuity.

the