was an impossibility, viz., an extensive foreign commerce and a huge exportation, without a home consumption. They had no idea of the natural development of a nation; that it advances from a superabundant agriculture to manufactures, and from superabundant manufactures to external trade. Dazzled by the enormous commerce of Great Britain, and ignorant of economic truths, they dreamt that they could prematurely force a country especially adapted to agriculture, and which possessed no capital,1 into a foremost place in the markets of the world. These views are manifested in their Parliamentary debates, and in the treatises of their commercial writers. In both, agriculture and domestic traffic are treated lightly, and the word "trade means almost always foreign commerce, to the exclusion of the other two, which in their due order are the indispensable foundations upon which foreign intercourse and external exchange can be built. Of this way of thinking, we have already had an example in Hutchinson's worthless and misleading Commercial Restraints, in which the author complained that the woollen manufacture of Ireland had been destroyed by England, though he must have known, at the time he wrote, that there was a flourishing home manufacture which absorbed every pound of wool grown in Ireland, and which, when freedom of exportation was granted, was found to be incapable of increase.

1" The Irish are deficient in all kinds of stock, they have not sufficient for the cultivation of their lands, and are deficient in the stocks of master manufacturers, wholesale merchants, and even of retailers" (Commercial Restraints, p. 73).

279

CHAPTER XIV.

FROM 1753 TO 1773-THE INTENTIONAL WASTE BY THE IRISH COMMONS OF THE RESOURCES OF THE COUNTRYUNIVERSAL JOBBERY.

Two of the most recent writers, who have treated of the condition of Ireland in the eighteenth century, have made statements respecting the revenue of that country which could only have arisen from extraordinary unacquaintance with the subject. Mr. Froude tells us that the finances of Ireland were "economically managed," and Mr. Lecky assures us that the Irish Parliament put "a real check upon the extravagance of the Executive "2 A short examination will show us that these assertions are directly opposed to the truth, and that, from about the middle of the century, the Irish Parliament, for purposes of its own, deliberately set itself to squander the resources of the kingdom, and to accumulate a National Debt which need never have existed. The country gentlemen of Ireland, says Arthur Young, "have regularly in Parliament promoted all those visionary and expensive projects, set on foot by interested people, for giving premiums and bounties to the amount of an hundred thousand pounds a year, and which alone accounts for the whole of the National Debt and declining revenue, which will make many new taxes necessary.

3

1 English in Ireland, Book V., c. 1. Yet, in the next chapter, he states that £150,000 a year was lost to the Government out of the customs by "various forms of peculation".

2 Vol. ii.,

p. 313.

3 Tour in Ireland, ii., p. 272.

In 1747, the King announced to the British Parliament that the French had made overtures of peace, and in the following year the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was concluded. This peace poured a flood of wealth into Ireland, which enabled her to pay off her national debt, which in 1747 amounted to £314,304,1 within the short space of five years. It ought to be mentioned here that Parliament sat every second year, and that the charges of the Government, previous to the year 1784, were always made up for two

years.

a

In 1749 the revenue rose so considerably that a surplus of £220,241 remained in the Treasury after all the expenses of Government had been defrayed. The King desired that a portion of this surplus should be applied to the diminution of the national debt, and a motion to this effect was made by his Attorney-General in the Commons. Heads of a bill, which afterwards became law, were drawn up by the Commons for the payment of the sum of £128,500, in which there was the following recital. "Whereas considerable balance remained in the hands of the viceTreasurers. . . unapplied, and it will be for your Majesty's service and for the ease of your faithful subjects. so much thereof as can be conveniently spared, should be paid, agreeably to your Majesty's intentions, in discharge of the aforesaid national debts; we pray, etc." The surplus arose from a great increase in the hereditary revenue and in the additional duties, but principally in the former. As it arose from an increase in the King's revenue and in duties which had been granted to him without appropriation, it is clear the disposal of the surplus was

1 Commons' Journals, vol. IV., pt. i., p. 529.

that

2 Clarendon, Revenue and Finances of Ireland, p. 100; Campbell, Constitution and Government of Ireland, p. 366.

3 23 Geo. II., c. 2.

lodged in the King. However this may be, the recital in the Act was an acknowledgment of his right to interfere in the disposal of the surplus, and of his consent having been communicated to the Commons before they drew up the heads of the bill.

On

In 1751, the revenue was still more productive, and a surplus of £248,396 remained in the Treasury. The King, having been informed that it had been doubted whether his consent was necessary to the disposal of the surplus, laid the matter before all the judges in England. Their unanimous answer was that his previous consent was part of the Royal prerogative in the disposition of the money. opening the session, the Lord-Lieutenant told the Commons that His Majesty would graciously consent and recommended it to them that such part of the money remaining in the Treasury as should be thought consistent with the public service be applied to the further reduction of the national debt ".3 The Commons thanked the King, but took no notice of his consent. They drew up heads of a bill for the application of £120,000 to the payment of the debt, but omitted all mention of the King's consent. When the bill was transmitted to England,, the omission was there supplied, and the word "consent" inserted in it. The bill, so altered, passed both Houses without an objection or a single negative. This was the second Irish legislative acknowledgment that the King's consent was necessary to the disposal of a surplus.

4

1Campbell, p. 366. Clarendon says: "Had the sums left to lie in the hands of the collectors, and the surplus in the Treasury, beyond what was necessary for the current services, been applied to the payment of the debt, it appears that there would have been no less than £22,370 to spare after satisfying every demand" (p. 100).

2 Clarendon, p. 101; Campbell, p. 366.

3 Lord Macartney, Account of Ireland. These words are repeated in the Act, 25 Geo. II., c. 2.

Lord Macartney; Campbell, p. 367.

In 1753, the surplus in the Treasury amounted to £315,822.1 At the opening of the session, the LordLieutenant in his speech repeated exactly the same words of His Majesty's consent and recommendation as in the previous session. The Commons in their address omitted the word "consent," but expressed their sense of the King's recommendation. Heads of a bill were drawn up by them for applying £77,500 or so much thereof as should be sufficient to discharge the remainder of the debt and for other purposes. In these heads the Commons mentioned neither the King's consent nor his recommendation. The bill was returned from England with the word "consent" inserted according to the form of the preceding session. It was thrown out by a majority of five-122 to 117because the King's consent was mentioned in it. Notwithstanding the rejection of the bill, the King sent over his letter for the payment of the remainder of the debt out of the balance in the Treasury.3

The revenue still continued to rise, and in 1755, the accumulation was so great, that the Committee of Accounts voted the amount of the surplus to be no less than £471,404 5s. 6d.1

The Commons, finding themselves foiled in their attempt to get into their own hands the disposal of the surplus in the Treasury, now resolved that a surplus should never again be found there. It became a maxim to depress the hereditary revenue in every possible way, and, under the

1 Clarendon, p. 102; Campbell, p. 367.

241 'This conduct, however popular at that time, has since been considered as an effort of party to obtain power (Clarendon, p. 102); "At this time a powerful faction in Parliament wanted to force themselves into place and power; and so artful were they that the people became at once the tools and dupes of their ambition " (Campbell, p. 367).

4

3 Macartney; Campbell, p. 367.

+ Clarendon, p. 102; Hutchinson, Commercial Restrictions, p. 38.