"The author, conversing on this point with a sensible honest grazier in 1752, he did acknowledge that, for his own part, he had then latterly grown 200 tods of wool on the same farm (consisting wholly of enclosed pasture ground, without any right of common in fens, &c.) which ten years before had been used to produce him not more than about 100 tods; and the very reason assigned by him for this double portion was, the distemper of horned cattle, that had, in a great measure, obliged him to do it; and besides, the price of wool had been a further inducement. This being a common case of the county (Lincolnshire), the increase of the kingdom, he was sensible upon the whole, must have been prodigiously great, and that one-third more was a very moderate computation; especially (added he) considering besides, what is a general circumstance, how much more than two-fold that stock hath been for the last ten years upon innumerable fens and commons in particular, usually depastured with sheep, although subject to diminution by rotting in wet summers; but for contrary reasons being sound and healthy all the time, and far beyond what can be remembered for so long a term together, the flocks there have multiplied exceedingly.' Moreover, he took notice, that some large districts in several counties, before the distemper wholly addicted to horned cattle, having necessarily changed their measures, larger quantities of wool were then grown where it was not a commodity at all before.'

"And therefore, without pretending to estimate the whole yearly quantity of wool, or the proportion of home consumption to our exportation trade for the manufacture, we think it may be safely affirmed that an increase of woollen exports to the annual amount, on a medium, of only £236,528 12s. 8d., was by no means in proportion to the annual increased growth of wool. If the latter was but one-third, on a medium, the former was not one-fourteenth. Under these circumstances, the advanced price of it, as was the case, is a mystery not to be unfolded without a supposition of runnage, especially considering that, while the quantity produced was so much less, a general belief prevailed of wool being even then run, and though not in the excessive quantities that some extravagantly represented, yet to such a degree, that it was publicly and solemnly considered how to contrive a scheme of registry for preventing it.

"But further: if, varying our comparison, we take of these ten years only five, viz., from 1744 to 1748 inclusive, it will be found that the annual medium from 1738 to 1743 (viz., of six years immediately preceding those five) exceeded them by upwards of £215,500 yearly; which shows the affair of runnage in a more

clear and yet stronger light. Nay, if we leave out the year 1738, as perhaps an extraordinary one, still the medium from 1739 to 1743 exceeds that of the five next following years by near £84,000 per annum. Or, if we compare the last four years before wool did advance, viz., from 1739 to 1742 inclusive, with the next four after such advance, viz., from 1743 to 1746 inclusive, the medium of the former exceeds the latter more than £100,000 per annum.

"Lastly, if we compare the medium from 1738 to 1742 inclusive (while wool was at the lowest, and the quantity far less) with the medium from 1743 (when wool advanced at once considerably) to 1749 inclusive (during which time the price of wool kept up, notwithstanding that the quantity produced was greatly more), the medium decrease in this last period, compared with the medium of that next before, was £301 2s. 84d. Such advanced price of the material, under such an increased growth of it, with even this last, though inconsiderably small, decrease of woollen exports, instead of a very large increase, as naturally one would have expected, is no way rationally to be accounted for, but upon the foot of runnage.

"Viewing, then, our Custom-house accounts referred to in each of the above lights singly, they are strong signs of wool-running; and, considered altogether, they prove it most evidently against those who will have the price of wool to be the surest test of an increase or decrease in the woollen exportation trade; whereas, in most instances we have been able to produce, it appears to be no test at all and particularly it is to be noted of 1753 (when wool fell one-third of its price from what it had been two years before, and for which was pretended a stagnation of business) the exports of that very year exceeded the medium of the three next preceding ones (in two of which wool had risen to the very highest) £141,602 13s. 4d.

"Our French, or Frenchified Sir J. Nichols, aware of these frequent disagreements between the price of English wool in England and woollen exports from thence, turns his argument in favour of the prohibition a contrary way, and says, whenever the material is lowest in England, exports of manufacture are then always highest, for that very reason; and he calls to witness this, our Custom-house accounts. But those of 1749, 1750, and 1751, do not prove his point, rather the reverse: at least, they are an exception to his rule.

"'Tis true, the medium increase annually, from the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle to 1753 inclusive, is £862,137 12s., but that exceeding the medium decrease, during war with Spain and France, only £30,552 per annum : it by no means accounts for the surplus

we must suppose to have arisen, both from such decrease of trade, and from the so very much increased growth of wool as was indisputably in that period.*

"Neither was there a deficiency in the usual imports of wool and yarn from Ireland, to eke out the shadow of an argument that way. Custom-house accounts we have on this head from 1745 to 1750, tell us that the annual medium of both together in that term was 205,532 stones; but the annual medium from 1741 to 1744 inclusive, was only 128,911 stones; and from 1726 to 1729 inclusive, not more than 132,398 stones. So that here was comparatively no small increase of wool, as well as yarn, imported from Ireland. Whence we might very plausibly infer, first, as if the advanced price of wool in England had made consequently an increased import of that material raw from Ireland; and that it is an argument of what the fruits might, and certainly indeed would be, if, runnage being once effectually prevented, wool bore commonly a better price with us, that is, if it was brought more nearly to a level with the market price of Europe. But, secondly, we may, and very truly observe, how little such increased imports did in fact avail towards depriving foreigners at this time, (1745-1750) or must do at all others, so long as an illicit trade from England shall obtain, that it is only like pouring water into a vessel already edge full, and running over. For that was eminently the case at the time we are speaking of; and we may be assured, wool and yarn from Ireland, when not actually wanting, always did, and ever will, but quicken the current of English wool to foreign markets. Thirdly, it is further to be noted from the premises, that howsoever guilty the people of Ireland are in the matter of wool running, they are neither sole, nor, as Mr. Postlethwayt with many others thinks them, principal aggressors in that way.

"Upon the whole, after such manifest proof, à posteriori, it does not signify against the truth, of wool being run from England, that we are at a loss to say by what canals it passes beyond sea. Were those known, they would be damm'd up; but still, under the same pressure, 'twould burst out in some other places."

CHAPTER II.

PREVIOUS TO THE YEAR 1750.

Irish Pamphlets-Smuggling Wool from Ireland to England-Ports in England for Importation-Penalties for Smuggling-Woollen Manufacture discour aged in Ireland-Thoughts on a Bill in the House of Lords Distinction between Colonies for Trade and Colonies for Empire The Grazier's Complaint-The Rents of Ireland spent in London-Wool of England sufficient for the Wants-Increase of Inclosures and Tillage Land- Increased Number of Sheep-Consequences of importing Wool from Ireland-Rents and Cost of Living in Ireland-The Wool equal to Half the RentalsComparison between English and Irish Farms-Lincolnshire-Number of Acres Number of Sheep-Quantity of Wool- Number of Parishes-Rents in South Britain-Persons employed in the Woollen Manufacture-Persons employed in the Growth of Wool-Excidium Anglica-The Effects of Smuggling Wool-Superior Quality of English Wool-Comparison with various Foreign Wools-Thoughts on the Woollen Manufacture of England -Observations on the present State of Ireland and the Woollen Manufacture-Remarks on the English Woollen Manufacture, and preventing the Export of Irish Wool-A Scheme to prevent the Running of Irish Wool and Woollens, by prohibiting the Importation of Spanish Wool into Ireland-Labour employed in making Cloth-Calculation of Time and Cost, and Division of Labour in making Cloth-Comparison of Labour in working Spanish and Irish Wool-Cost of Subsistence in Ireland-Reduced Growth of Wool in Ireland-Computation of Woollen Manufacture of Ireland-Wool and Woollen Yarn imported into England from IrelandFrench Manufactures dependant on Irish Wool-State of Trade in Ireland— Effect of Restrictions on the Price of Horses and Cattle in Ireland-Origin and Rise of the Provision Trade in Ireland-Effect of Restrictions on the Woollen Manufactures of Ireland-True Principles of Commerce.

THOUGH Some of the pamphlets relating to wool and the woollen manufactures of Ireland, were noticed by Smith, the vast importance, as regards the peace and prosperity of that country, which resulted from those measures, was not contemplated; it may be well therefore to revert to the wool and woollen trade of that kingdom previous to, and about that period.

Great complaints had been long made, that Irish wool, the exportation of which was strictly prohibited, was smuggled to France and Flanders under the pretext, that the shipments

were intended for England; and in order to prevent them, an act passed the British legislature in 1696, defining such ports in England to which alone it should be exported: viz. to Whitehaven, Liverpool, Chester, Bristol, Bridgwater, Minehead, Barnstaple, and Biddiford.

That law being considered insufficiently binding, it was amended in 1698-9, and, retaining the above-mentioned English ports for importation, the exportation from Ireland was prohibited under forfeiture of ships and cargoes, and a penalty of £500 inflicted, except the wool was sent from Dublin, Waterford, Youghall, Kinsale, Cork, and Drogheda.

They were not idle also in England, for in 1698 the House of Lords addressed King William, urging upon him the necessity of discouraging the woollen manufactures of Ireland, the increase of which had given umbrage to the people of England.

In this state of affairs, the feelings of the Irish were greatly excited, and the following pamphlets made their ap

pearance :

"Some Thoughts on the Bill depending before the Right "Honourable the House of Lords, for Prohibiting the "Exportation of the Woollen Manufactures in Ireland:" published in London, 1698, and a second edition printed in Dublin, 1740.

"The establishing colonies, my Lords, is often done by establishing the conquering army in some part of the conquered lands; sometimes by sending a number of young people to inhabit them; but always by giving them encouragement, that it will be their interest to keep the natives in subjection.

"This is the case of Ireland; that after five hundred years, fifty-two rebellions and massacres, to the loss of a million of English, the conquering army often planted in the country, and multitudes besides leaving England to inhabit there, almost the whole country has at last got into English hands; and, if we should lay such difficulties upon them that they would think it their interest to leave the country, or not be very solicitous for the English interest there, I submit to your Lordships' wisdom whether that kingdom may not hereafter give us fresh trouble.