• OPINION OF PROFESSOR HEWINS MP
• FALSITY OF ASSUMPTION THAT IRELAND OWES ALL HER PROSPERITY TO THE UNION
• DETAILS OF THE STATE OF SOME OF THE LEADING IRISH INDUSTRIES, BEFORE THE UNION
  

It is unnecessary to go back further than 1782, the year in which the Irish Parliament gained its independence, since previous to that the operation of Poyning's Law, under which legislation could only be introduced in it with the permission of the English Privy Council, rendered it little more than a machine for registering the decrees of the English Government of the day.

Lest it should be thought my account of the subject has been coloured by my own views, I shall confine myself entirely to works of standard reputation as authorities, with a preference for those written by Unionists and authors who are not Irish.

For the general history of the period I propose to use O'Connor Morris's "Ireland from '98-'98" a good deal. The late Mr O'Connor Morris was a Protestant landlord, and in politics a Unionist. When he published this history he was County Court Judge for Roscommon and Sligo. I trust, therefore, that what I shall write on his authority will be received as absolutely trustworthy. (2)

For the economic aspects of the period in question I shall make liberal use of a book published in 1903 called "A History of the Commercial and Financial relations between England and Ireland from the period of the Restoration", by Miss Alice Effie Murray, DSc, and of the Preface to it by Mr WAS Hewins, MA, Director of the London School of Economics, who is one of the leading economists among the Tariff Reformers, and has since become Unionist MP for Hereford. (3)

Prof Hewins MP

"I am the more pleased to contribute a preface to her work because I have long believed that the difficulties of Ireland are due to economic rather than religious or political causes, though in times past, at any rate, the reaction of the latter on the economic development of Ireland and its relations with England has certainly been unfavourable in its effects. I, therefore, welcome every attempt to set forth in an impartial manner the main features of Irish economic history, whether or not I agree with the opinions of the author. There is scarcely any subject of which we are more ignorant or the study of which is more likely to correct extravagant views of British genius in the sphere of economic statesmanship."

In regard to the thoroughness of Miss Murray's investigations and the importance of her conclusions, I would invite attention to the following remarks of Mr. Hewins on the subject, and also to the fact that the work is not a polemical treatise, but embodies the result of the researches which gained Miss Murray the degree of DSc in the University of London.

"The fact that Miss Murray's work won the approval of two such high authorities on the subject of it as Sir Robert Giffen and Prof C F Bastable is sufficient evidence of its value. She has not only made use of the available materials, both books and documents, which are in print, but she has incorporated the results of much original research amongst English and Irish manuscript sources."

Prosperity and the Union

"Most of the difficulties, of an economic character, in the financial relations between England and Ireland arise from the differences of economic structure and organisation between the two countries. If Ireland were a highly organised, populous, manufacturing country, the present fiscal system would probably work out no worse than it does in the urban districts of Great Britain. But whatever be the virtues or the demerits of that system, it was certainly not framed with any reference to the economic conditions which prevail in Ireland."

And, as a summary of the general effect of the Union, I doubt very much if either Mr Redmond or Mr William O'Brien would care to improve much on this:-

"This economic estrangement and relative decline of Ireland must necessarily be a source of weakness to the United Kingdom. It practically means that the Union is merely political, and therefore unstable."

Pre-Union Prosperity

It should be noted that at this time the English duties were so high as almost entirely to exclude Irish manufactures, so that whatever prosperity there was in Ireland was in no way due to her, but arose entirely from the condition of the country itself and from trade with the rest of the world.

Miss Murray describes as follows the state of some of the leading industries of that time, most of which have since disappeared:-

"The glass manufacture probably made more progress during this period than any other Irish industry. Immediately after the withdrawal of the trade restrictions two glass factories were erected in Cork, one for making bottle and window glasses of all kinds, the other for making all sorts of plate glass. Very soon the glass manufactured at these factories was held to be equal to any made in Europe, while other glass made at Waterford equalled, if not excelled, the same kind made in Great Britain, in spite of the established skill of the British manufacturers....Before 1782 Ireland had imported all her flint glass from England, but now she not only supplied by far the larger part of her own consumption, but also exported some to America......Next to the glass industry, the Irish cotton manufacture seems to have made the most progress after the repeal of the commercial restrictions. As early as 1783 the Lord Lieutenant wrote that the printing of cottons had been brought to great perfection in Ireland......In 1784 the Manchester cotton manufacturers attributed the great decrease in their trade with Ireland not only to the non-importation agreements which were then in existence, but also to the fact that the Irish were beginning to make for themselves such articles as fustians, cottons, and calicoes.

"The success of the Irish cotton trade alarmed the Manchester merchants, and the English cotton manufacturers began flooding the Irish markets with their goods selling them at reduced prices, in order to crush out the new industry. But these attempts do not appear to have succeeded, for there continued to be a general decrease in the amount of English cotton goods exported to Ireland.......American importers stated that Irish corduroys were equal to the best British. Altogether, the prospects of the industry were hopeful. There was a good deal of enterprise connected with the manufactures. The best machinery was imported from England.

"Besides Brooke's factory at Prosperous, there were in a few years cotton factories at Slane, Balbriggan, and Finglas in County Dublin. Several English manufacturers set up other factories in County Waterford.....The cotton manufacture was now well established in Ireland, and its success seemed necessary to the prosperity of the country....There was now a large cotton manufacture at Belfast, and during the closing years of the century the whole cotton industry became so prosperous that it threatened to rival the linen manufacture, and many linen weavers began to take to cotton weaving.

"At the time of the Union the cotton industry ranked next to the linen in value, and there were in existence thirteen cotton mills capable of working up 500,000 pounds of cotton, while much capital was invested in the industry. . . . . All this time the linen manufacture continued to develop satisfactorily. The exports of plain linen cloth increased enormously from 1780 to 1796, the comparative fall during the last four years of the century being, of course, due to the general condition of the country.

"A thriving trade in coloured linens to the American States and the British plantations was opened up. Nearly all the coloured linen exported was sent to these places, for it was still excluded from the British markets by duties equal to a prohibition, whilst most of the Continental nations imposed heavy duties on the importation of these articles.

"A fair amount of cambric and lawn was also sent to America and the plantations, and at the beginning of the war with France it seemed likely that a demand might arise in Great Britain..... Thread stockings and a considerable amount of mixed linen silk and cotton goods were also exported. The Irish foreign trade in linen goods was now far superior to that of Scotland, in spite of the encouragement which the latter country had received for nearly a century. In the article of plain linen cloth alone Ireland exported well over 46 million yards, as against 23 million exported from Scotland.

"Some progress was made in the silk industry but little was exported, only a few pounds of manufactured and thrown silk and a few pairs of silk stockings every year. . . . . It was in the manufacture of poplins and other mixed goods that the Irish excelled. During this period there was a flourishing cabinet manufacture in Dublin and its neighbourhood, which gave employment to a considerable number of persons...." (Miss Murray, p276 ff)

In order to encourage the brewing industry the Irish Parliament diminished the duty on beer and added to the spirit duty. Miss Murray goes on to explain how:-

"...as a result of these new regulations the recent decline in the Irish brewing industry was checked, and the output of beer and porter has continued to increase up to the present day. The progress of the brewing industry was not, however, coincident with a decline in the Irish distilling industry, in spite of the new taxation. Small distilleries disappeared, but the large ones increased their output, and the total amount of spirits distilled steadily rose. In 1780 the total produce of the distilleries was 1,227,651 gallons. This had increased to 3,499,596 gallons in 1782, just as the new policy of encouraging the breweries was being adopted; but in 1798 the total amount of spirits distilled increased to 4,783,954 gallons....

"The efforts of the Irish Parliament to develop Irish resources in another direction met with greater success. Irish fisheries now sprang into importance by means of a careful system of bounties and a wise system of inspection of all fish exported. In 1778 only forty fishing vessels had existed in Ireland, but in 1781 there were 333 fishing vessels eligible for bounty. In the following year this number had increased to 700, while there were three large ships of 200 tons each too large to receive the bounty, and many other vessels which carried less than the requisite number of tons. . . . The Irish Parliament was anxious to secure a good reputation in foreign markets for Irish goods. British witnesses testified that Irish herrings were sought after more than their own because of the unimpeachable character of all Irish fish. Often the West India fleet leaving the Clyde would go to Cork to ship Irish herrings.

"Irish fishermen went to different parts of Scotland to teach the people fish curing, while others went further afield and established 'a great fishery on the banks of Newfoundland', which, in 1785, 'increases daily.'.... ...The same system of inspection which was applied in Ireland to fish was also applied to beef and pork, and the English Inspector-General of Exports and Imports stated that, in his belief, Ireland was in no small degree indebted to this regulation for the superior quality and character of her meat and the higher price which it fetched in every part of the world." (Miss Murray, p 286 ff).

Miss Murray's final conclusion would be startling, were it not that one of the principal arguments of the Ulster leader has insensibly paved the way for it. Her summing up is:-

"A study of the commercial and industrial history of Ireland during those twenty years from 1780 to the Union certainly shows that material progress was being made, and that the Irish were beginning to evince a spirit of industrial enterprise.

"Of course, many checks and drawbacks had to be encountered, and it was difficult for Ireland to compete successfully with those other nations which had such a long industrial start. The effects of the commercial restrictions could not but remain in the country, even after the restrictions themselves had been removed.

"This is why the foreign trade in woollen goods could not keep at the high level it had attained in 1785; it was one of the chief reasons why Irish manufacturers were possessed of such little capital and Irish artisans of such little skill; and it was the main reason why in later years Irish industries dwindled and decayed under the stress of British and foreign competition brought about by the new policy of Free Trade.

"But that so much progress was made in spite of the still existing commercial inequality with Great Britain says something for the elasticity of the country and the new spirit of enterprise which commercial and political freedom had awakened among the Irish people. From 1704 to 1782 the general export of Ireland increased from one to thirty-two, but in fourteen years, from 1782 to 1796, it rose from thirty-two to eighty-eight.

"We hear little of the old complaint of want of employment in the towns, except during two or three years of localised distress, for the growing manufactures kept all hands at work. At the same time, there is some reason to believe that the condition of the peasantry changed slightly for the better. The extension of tillage made their position less precarious, and it was not until after the Union that the evils due to the too sudden increase of arable farming began to appear.

"The famines which had occurred so frequently all through the century, disappeared for the time being, and the new national feeling did something to establish more humane sentiments towards the peasantry. The class of resident landlords was larger than it had been since the beginning of the century, and especially during the Volunteer movement Irish landlords wished to appear at the head of a prosperous tenantry.

"On the whole, this short period of legislative independence in Ireland was by far the most prosperous period which the country had ever experienced. The Irish Parliament included among its members many brilliant and capable men, who knew by what means they might best promote the prosperity of their country.

"The pity was that there had only a short twenty years in which to work, and that when the Union took place the industrial life of the Irish people was not fully or firmly enough established to benefit by the new connection.

"From the material point of view the Union achieved nothing for Ireland, simply because the two countries were too different in their economic life to allow of both reaping equal benefit from the operation of the same commercial system.

"Almost directly after the Union there began a decline in Irish trade and industry, slow at first, but afterwards very rapid, a decline which only quite recently has begun to be arrested. It is indeed doubtful whether, even at the present day, Ireland is much richer than she was in the years before the Union. Her population is a little less, the percentage of the population employed wholly or partially in manufacturing industry is less, there is a greater gulf fixed between agricultural and industrial pursuits, so that the mass of the people are thrown far more entirely upon the land.

"On the other hand, the material condition of the Irish poor has certainly improved in recent years, although this improvement is by no means commensurate with the progress which has been made amongst the lowest working classes in Great Britain."(Miss Murray, p293 ff)

In other words, after 113 years of the blessings of the Union and the advantages of English wisdom and experience in administration, Ireland is just about as rich as she was at the time that measure was passed.

In fact in some ways she is relatively poorer, since then she was, at any rate, able to stand on her own legs, while now we are told that the consequence of any loosening of the bond which unites her to England will be financial ruin.

Let anyone compare Miss Murray's statement, "it is indeed doubtful whether, even at the resent day, Ireland is much richer than she was in the years before the Union," with the following extracts from the reported speeches of Sir Edward Carson, in which he presents a new version of Dr. Johnson's remark that the finest prospect in Scotland is the road leading to England:-

"I believe to cut ourselves off from a wealthy country like Great Britain, to divide our exchequers, and keep the poorer exchequer for ourselves, leaving the richer on the other side, is simple madness in the interest of the prosperity of our people....

"Well, that Bill had at least one valuable provision in it, because it was to advance £1,000,000 towards furthering the completion of the building of the necessary labourers' cottages. But do you think if he goes on with Home Rule next year, and the English people say that we are going to be separated and our Exchequer is separate-do you think we will ever get that £1,000,000? Do you think we will ever get any more money for the completion of land purchase? I would say to those who have this matter at heart: Get the Bill now, because as sure as we are here, and as sure as Home Rule is proceeded with, you will never get another 'bob' from the Imperial Exchequer towards any scheme that may be necessary for the betterment of our people."

It will thus appear that unless the Ulster leader has been exaggerating, Miss Murray's conclusion is very much an understatement of the case. If these are the advantages of the Union, that while all the rest of the civilised world has been increasing enormously in wealth, Ireland remains just where she was more than a hundred years ago, what great objection can there be on the financial side to giving other methods and other persons a trial? They may possibly do better, and can hardly do very much worse.

Besides, quite independently of the question of national self-respect, this system of living on doles from England is one that cannot go on indefinitely. The British taxpayer is getting decidedly impatient of the policy of being continually called on to put his hand in his pocket in order to bribe every party in Ireland in turn, and whether the Home Rule Bill becomes law or not, the day is not far distant when Ireland will have to live within her income, and when that day arrives, those who were led by the hope of material benefit in the shape of a continuous influx of English gold to shut their eyes to all abuses and resist all innovations, may find that their policy has been a short-sighted as well as a selfish one, and that even from the point of view of their own interests it would have been better to have been more patriotic.

We have seen that during the eighteen years that she enjoyed legislative independence the condition of Ireland was one of very considerable prosperity. It is, however, sometimes alleged and still more often implied, that as a consequence of the mismanagement of the Irish Parliament the national finances were in such a ruinous condition that the union with the wealthy Exchequer of Great Britain, so elegantly and touchingly referred to above, saved the Irish Government from bankruptcy.

The following extracts from Miss Murray's book will show what are the real facts:-

"During the first eleven years of legislative independence the expenditure of Ireland kept fairly level, averaging about one and a quarter millions per annum.... In 1783 the deficit had been much larger, but it was successfully reduced through the efforts of the opposition party in the Irish House of Commons, and for the next ten years the condition of the finances was flourishing.

"The equilibrium maintained between revenue and expenditure during these years says a good deal for the financial policy of Parliament, when we remember that just at this time new sums were being spent in encouraging trade and manufactures, and in developing the natural resources of Ireland. .....From 1785 to 1794 when the cost of the French war began to be felt, the annual deficit was never higher than £89,434 (British), and was generally very much less, while in 1790 there was an actual excess of revenue over expenditure amounting to £85,397 (British).

"No economy was effected by the Irish Parliament at the expense of England; on the contrary, generosity and loyalty were shown.....

"It has been seen in the account given of the Commercial Propositions how anxious Pitt was to secure from Ireland some fixed contribution to the general expenses of the Empire, such contribution to be applied either to the support of the Imperial navy or to the reduction of the British debt. The Irish Parliament had shown itself quite willing to make some settled contribution, conditional on an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure in years of peace, but unconditional in time of war. But the jealousy of the British manufacturing interest had forced Pitt to modify the propositions, greatly to the disadvantage of Ireland; and in consequence they had been thrown out by the Irish Parliament, chiefly on constitutional grounds". (Miss Murray, p296 ff)

During all this time the power of the Irish Parliament to effect useful reforms was considerably lessened by the fact that many of its own members were the corrupt instruments of the Executive, over which it had unfortunately no control; as Miss Murray goes on to show:-

"In 1790 the number of placemen and pensioners in Parliament was declared to be equal to one-half of the whole efficient body. The pensions on the Irish establishment, exclusive of military, were in 1789 £105,739, and it was said that fresh pensions to the amount of £16,000 had been granted since March 1784, besides additional salaries to sinecure offices in the hands of members of Parliament; while during the same period the whole civil list had increased by £31,000.....The long additional salaries to sinecure or utterly insignificant offices were granted in order that the names of the recipients should not appear in the pension lists, so that a sort of inferior and corrupt pension list existed.

"What Grattan and his party wanted was to check this extravagance and corruption on the part of Government by means of legislation.....But Government resisted all these proposals with great energy, and it was not till 1793 that the Irish Parliament managed to pass its three great measures for limiting the powers of the Executive."(Miss Murray, p298 ff)

Two of these, the Responsibility Bill and the Pension Bill, fulfilled to some extent the object for which they were intended. Not so the third:-

"The Place Bill excluded from Parliament revenue officers, placemen, and pensioners; all members who accepted offices under Government were to vacate their seats, although they might be re-elected, and every member of Parliament before he took his seat was to swear that he did not hold any pension or office which might incapacitate him from sitting....

"The Pension and Responsibility Bills put Irish finances for the first time theoretically under the control of the Irish Parliament and also increased the real financial power of the Commons. But the Place Bill, from which so much was hoped, achieved nothing, for it was perverted by Government to corrupt uses.....The actual enactment of the Bill in 1793 may at first have purified the Irish Parliament in some slight degree, but there is no doubt that later on the Bill was perverted to corrupt uses, and it was their power of changing borough members without appealing to the constituencies by a dissolution which enabled the Irish Government to carry the Union.

"In the financial year 1792-93 the condition of Irish finances seems to have been good. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his annual statement to Parliament in February, 1792, he stated that the unfunded debt was decreasing, and that the country was experiencing that improvement in the finances which he had expected, and in the hope of which he had deferred any application to Parliament for an extraordinary supply to discharge arrears....The increase of revenue foretold by Sir John Parnell took place, but in 1793 the war with France began, and the even course of Irish finances changed.....

"In consequence of the French war, and later on of the Rebellion also, the expenditure of Ireland increased enormously after 1793. It has been seen that from 1782 to 1793 the Irish revenue and expenditure fairly balanced each other, and that expenditure did not materially increase. But from 1793 to the Union expenditure increased at a very rapid rate. This increase was chiefly under the head of military services, and the total expenditure for the year ended Lady Day, 1800, was as much as five times greater than that for the year ended Lady Day, 1793.

"From 1782-83 to 1792-93 the sum expended annually on military services amounted on an average to £585,000 (British). From 1793 to 1797 the increased military expenditure due to the French war raised this amount greatly, and in the year ended Lady Day, 1797, the large sum of £2,032,000 (British) was spent on military services alone. In 1797 the cost of the Yeomanry force, established to suppress the disorders in Ireland, first appears in the public accounts, so from this year till the Union a further increase in Irish military expenditure took place, an increase caused, not by the French war alone, but also by the Rebellion.

"In the year ended Lady Day, 1800, £4,506,762 (British) was spent on military services. If the military expenditure during these seven years, 1793-94 to 1799-1800 had been at the normal rate of £585,000 per annum mentioned above, it would only have amounted for the whole period to £4,095,000 (British). Actually it amounted to £18,050,941 (British), thus exceeding the normal amount by about fourteen million. A further expenditure was made on military services in the three quarters of a year from Lady Day, 1800, to January 5th, 1801, of over £2,300,000 (British), so that, roughly speaking, during the seven and three quarter years since the commencement of the war with France over sixteen millions (British) was spent by Ireland on military services in connection with the war and the Rebellion.

"Under these circumstances the Irish national debt rose from an insignificant amount to a very large sum. On Lady Day, 1783, the aggregate amount of the Irish funded and unfunded debt had only amounted in British currency to £1,917,784, and this amount had only increased by £334,983 (British) by Lady Day, 1793. But from that date it naturally began to grow enormously, and on January 5th, 1801, the aggregate Irish debt stood at £28,551,137 (British), or over £26,500,000 more than it had been eighteen years before. Nearly the whole of this increase took place in the last eight years of the period, and was directly due to the expenses of the French War and the Irish Rebellion.

"It was therefore little wonder that the condition of Irish finances just before the Union was held to be appalling, and the financial difficulties under which Ireland laboured were seized upon by Lord Castlereagh in order to press for a legislative Union with Great Britain. He even underestimated the revenue of the country in order to prove his case that bankruptcy was inevitable if a Union did not take place.

"It is as well to emphasise the fact that the commercial and financial distress which existed in Ireland during the last four years of the eighteenth century was due to the specific causes which have been mentioned. There was little decline in the prosperity of the country until the end of 1796, and this though an expensive war was being carried on.

"Castlereagh himself acknowledged that during the first three years of the war with France, Ireland had been regularly improving in commerce and revenue, even though eight millions had been taken from her circulating capital at different periods. Naturally, however, it was impossible for this improvement to continue when the Irish disturbances broke out. Credit was bound to collapse and industry to be dislocated, and we can only be surprised that the statistics of exports and imports do not show even a greater fall than is actually the case and that so considerable a revenue was raised from the country."( Miss Murray, pp300 ff)

It thus appears that it was the Irish Parliament which was economical and the English Executive which was extravagant; that in spite of this extravagance and the strain of foreign war, the finances of the country remained fairly prosperous until civil war broke out,and that it was the latter which was mainly responsible for the great increase in Irish debt.

Of course it will be very hard to hold the members of a Provisional Government responsible for debts incurred by it when some of them know law as well as the Attorney-General himself, even were it not run on the principle of limited liability, but in view of the very heavy expenditure incurred in the last civil war in Ireland, it would seem advisable that the underwriters should limit their liability also, and that the leaders of the Unionist Party should give the heads of the Provisional Government and the financial magnates clearly to understand that they will be responsible up to a sum of say £5,000,000, but not a penny more.

This suggestion, of course, only applies to the amount to be thrown on the taxpayers, and does not refer to the party funds, which may be used in any manner that may appear desirable, so far as the present writer is concerned. I am following the later precedents and assuming that the burden will be borne by the taxpayers in general as a symbol of Imperial equality and an indication that Ulstermen still preserve intact their cherished birthright, but if by any chance the earlier method should be resorted to, and this expenditure be treated as a purely Irish charge, the 'hard-headed men of business' who have any business left may find that too heroic methods of endeavouring to escape taxation defeat their own object and only lead to its increase.

There is one more possibility which those who are going into the civil war for the sake of their pockets would do well to contemplate. Should the royal assent be refused to the Bill for taking over the liabilities of the Provisional Government, or should the outbreaks in Ulster assume such a form that there will be a difficulty in drawing any very firm line of distinction between them and ordinary rioting, and the English Unionist leaders be tempted to take advantage of this technicality to repudiate their obligations, there will be nothing whatever to show there has been a civil war, and consequently the ordinary law will apply, and compensation for all malicious damage will be thrown on the rates of the locality in which it has taken place.

Should this contingency arise, the whole cost of both sides in whatever disturbances take place, instead of being thrown on the broad shoulders of the British taxpayer, will be thrown on the comparatively narrow ones of the ratepayers of the three or four counties taking part in it, which is an aspect of the matter I would commend to the attention of those who think that on the worldly side they can make everything right by insurance.

In addition to insuring their own property, they would do well to insure themselves also for the share of their neighbours' losses they are quite likely to be called upon to bear.

Notes and References

2. This is William O'Connor Morris, not to be confused with the chronicler of foxhunting and pop-historian Maurice of the same names. The former has some 17 serious historical works on record, covering the Land Acts, the Napoleonic Wars, the French Revolution, Hannibal's expedition against Rome (where I suspect JJ first encountered him during his classical studies), and a History of Ireland 1494 -1868, to which his 'Ireland from 1798 to 1898' is a sequel, published in 1898 by Innes, London. Its target readership was primarily the English, whose knowledge of Irish history was even more deficient then than it is now.(RJ 15/03/99).

3. I have been unable to trace any further publications by Alice Murray, who would appear to have foreshadowed subsequent work by George O'Brien. JJ picked on her work, with its LSE origin, and Hewins preface, as an impeccable Unionist source for Home Rule supporting arguments (RJ 15/03/99).

Some navigational notes:

Copyright Dr Roy Johnston 1998