A LETTER TO WILLIAM EDEN, Esq.

I HAVE read your printed letter to Lord Carliſle, on the repreſentations of Ireland reſpecting a FREE TRADE;—I own, I at firſt thought it rather ominous, when I ſaw the name of a late commiſſioner to Ame⯑rica prefixed to a work, the ſubject of which involves in it a queſtion concerning the RIGHTS OF A PEOPLE.—I find, however, I had little reaſon to be alarmed; for though you do not ſeem to poſſeſs, like my country⯑man Burke, all the patriot warmth that [6] glows for general liberty, yet you do not appear, in the common acceptation of the word, an enemy to this kingdom:—there is ſomething that looks at leaſt like candour in your ſentiments; your ſtyle is gentlemanly; and your meaning, where it is not envelo⯑ped in words, and obſcured by explanation, may, I think, be comprehended. However, I am of opinion, that if you had underſtood a little the ſubject you had undertaken to diſcuſs, your pamphlet would have been more compleat. I ſhall make no apology for this letter, for though your's is addreſſed to your private friend, and public colleague in negotiation, yet, Sir, as it has been pub⯑liſhed, and I preſume with your approba⯑tion, it is now a candidate ſubject to praiſe or cenſure from every individual who may, like you, have ‘"leiſure to advert to the printed accounts of ſome occurrences which have lately engaged the public attention:"’ For my own part I rejoice at the opportunity. While men of powerful abilities are exerting every effort in the defence of Ireland's na⯑tional [7] rights, I am happy to find an object within my capacity on a matter of ſo much importance; it has ever been my ambition, and where in my power, my endeavour to be of ſervice to my country; conſiſtent with my idea of that ſervice, I think it my duty to declare, without further egotiſm or introduction of myſelf to Mr. Eden, that the tenor of, and ſentiments contained in his letter to the Earl of Carliſle, OUGHT TO BE REPROBATED IN IRELAND.

You confeſs in your exordium to your correſpondent, that you are more deſtitute of competent information, IF POSSIBLE, than he has hitherto found you; how his lordſhip may have hitherto found you I know not, and therefore ſhall not infer that you were totally unfit for the ‘"new taſk"’ which you had impoſed upon yourſelf; but, Sir, let this circumſtance be as it may, the want of competent information need not have diſ⯑couraged you. If we may reaſon by analo⯑gy, according to the ſyſtem eſtabliſhed by [8] your patrons, the miniſtry, incapacity is in no caſe a diſqualification; the confeſſion therefore of this want of competent information may not have been in you, Sir, any affecta⯑tion of modeſty, it ſerves only to anticipate an obſervation which every one muſt cer⯑tainly make upon reading your performance. Neither, Sir, am I ſurpriſed at this your con⯑feſſed want of competent information with regard to the preſent queſtion; I have ſaid, it relates to ‘"THE RIGHTS OF A PEOPLE,"’ a term which I apprehend has been long ba⯑niſhed the circle in which you move, and conſequently cannot be there underſtood. I regret, Mr. Eden, that either from the blunder, or good intentions of governor John⯑ſtone, you were deprived, on your embaſſy to America, of any conference with her ſena⯑tors; had you been ſo happy to have had any communication of ſentiments with them on the ‘"RIGHTS OF A PEOPLE,"’ you would have received ſuch information that your competency on ſuch a ſubject could ne⯑ver be queſtioned, and from the apparent in⯑tegrity [9] of your intentions, all perverſion of underſtanding removed; I am convinced you would have ſacrificed to your information every grace and favor of a court; but, Sir, agreeable to your preſent mode of thinking, you have not once in your letter touched up⯑on THE RIGHT of the people of Ireland to a free trade. You ſay ‘"we ſhould diveſt our⯑ſelves of all prejudices contracted from the popular altercations of the day, that it is not the ſtrict policy of a former cen⯑tury, or the accidental diſtreſs of the preſent hour;"’ here we have both hour and day, as if our ſufferings, borne and growing in ‘"this unweeded garden,"’ ſo long undiſ⯑turbed, had their origin in the preſent hour, or at fartheſt a poſt or two before Mr. Eden thought proper to write his letter to lord Carliſle: it is impoſſible, Sir, with temper to canvas the many terms, phraſes, and epithets in your pamphlet, ſo trifling in themſelves and ſo diſreſpectful to this in⯑jured country; there are a few of them, however, that it would be criminal to paſs over without animadverſion; do you [10] mean by ‘"altercations of the day,"’ the una⯑nimous ſenſe of the people of Ireland? Do you call the long and ſhameful prohibition againſt the natural and juſt rights of this kingdom ‘"an accidental diſtreſs of the preſent hour?"’ and do you ſtile the perſevering, per⯑ſecuting inſolence of your countrymen, ‘"an imaginary neglect?"’ One phraſe you uſe indeed with ſome degree of juſtice; our demands you define to be ‘"urgent eagerneſs;"’ be it ſo. When I admit the truth, I am in⯑different to the tautology of the expreſſion: the diſtreſs of Ireland you ſay ‘"by whatever circumſtances occaſioned, exiſts and operates, Great-Britain cannot heſitate to give re⯑lief, the principal wing of her building is in danger."’ Still, Mr. Eden, you avoid the claim of right, and chooſe rather that barren reſource, the BOUNTY of Great-Britain; but you aſſert ‘"ſhe cannot heſitate to give relief."’ The amaſing fortitude of Great Britain is be⯑yond comprehenſion, ſhe is a very felo de ſe in heroiſm. The impotent efforts of her cou⯑rage have almoſt wearied the arm of America; yet, Great Britain cannot heſitate to give relief; [11] alas, Sir, you are in this aſſertion too full of the milk of human kindneſs. The feelings of your Great Britain are as ludicrous in the judgment of an Iriſhman, as the bluſh of Caeſar in the opinion of Cato. You qua⯑lify indeed your generous aſſertion, for you add this relief is to be given, becauſe it is for ‘"the ſafety and ſtrength of the great center edifice,"’ and you deſcribe Ireland ‘"the principal wing of HER buildings."’ I will al⯑low you, Sir, your figure in architecture, and if you pleaſe all the ability of a Dutch engineer, you ſhall dam up the ocean; but I know not where you will find that cement which can make Ireland, being a diſtinct kingdom, the wing, as you expreſs it, of Great Britain's buildings.

I fear from the purport of your letter, you view this country as a province to your's; if ſo, you are one of the worſt mediators that could poſſibly appear; however I can⯑not help wiſhing you more ſucceſs on this occaſion, than the reſult of your embaſſy to America can give us reaſon to expect. [12] The idea of conqueſt has been long ſince reprobated—the power of ſupremacy has in fact, though not of right, remained.

When you ſay ‘"the diſtreſs of Ireland, by whatever circumſtances occaſioned, exiſts and operates,"’ I am inclined to think that ill as you are informed, you are poſſeſſed of the knowledge of ſome latent cauſes or cir⯑cumſtances occaſioning this diſtreſs; it would have been candid to have declared them; but as you are ſilent, I ſhall take it as admitted that the diſtreſſes of Ireland are oc⯑caſioned by the arbitrary reſtrictions on her commercial rights, and that ‘"nothing ſhort of a FREE TRADE can give relief."’—There is but one aſſertion in this part of your letter which I can admit to be well⯑founded and indiſputable, namely, that our diſtreſs ‘"exiſts and operates;"’ confident of its operation we can have no doubt of its exiſt⯑ence.

You tell us, Sir, ‘"a kind and manly confi⯑dence in the equity and wiſdom of Great [13] Britain ſhould regulate the expectations of Ireland."’ You freely own ‘"that the doubts and difficulties which the firſt view of the ſubject ſuggeſts to your mind, are ſuch as preclude all farther reaſonings without fur⯑ther information;"’ but in the ſame page you tell us that ‘"when you ſtate your reaſonings you will be better underſtood."’—You ſay the queſtions to be aſked are indeed ‘"nu⯑merous, nice and intricate, and that the whole ſyſtem of revenue is involved in the propoſition."’ You recommend candid recollection, fair and diligent enquiry, caution, minute inveſtigation, much diſcuſſion, and ma⯑ture deliberation: Now why and wherefore all theſe trappings of language? why is re⯑collection, which is in its nature involun⯑tary, to be governed by candour? and why ſhall diligence enquire, caution inveſtigate, and deliberation diſcuſs?—I will anſwer—Ire⯑land demands what England has no right to refuſe; unwilling to comply ſhe would take every chance from time, hitherto by no means amicable to her intereſt; many events may [14] happen before recollection can be perfectly candid, before caution can thoroughly in⯑veſtigate the whole minutiae of commerce, and before mature deliberation can diſcuſs the involved ſyſtem of the revenue. Peace may be, no matter on what conceſſions or conditions, purchaſed or obtained from Spain and France; Britain, now exhauſted, will be ſuf⯑ficiently powerful, and then adieu to fair enquiry and candid recollection; farewel to all the fond hopes and honeſt expectations of poor deluded Ireland: her only aſylum will be, in ſuch caſe, THE WISDOM AND EQUITY of Great Britain. After deli⯑beration, &c. you proceed with an army of doubts, bringing up many a perhaps and pro⯑bably in their rear; and among a variety of novel remarks, as certain as your diſcovery that where diſtreſs exiſts it operates, you tell us that ‘"political operations muſt often be influenced by circumſtances; and that unad⯑viſed meaſures ought not to be adopted"’—it is true,—your ſtile of reaſoning, where certainty appears to demonſtration, cannot [15] be diſputed; like an arithmetical rule it cannot err; ſomething ſimilar is the advice of Friar Laurence, ‘"wiſely and ſlow; they ſtumble who run faſt;"’ and this, Mr. Eden, I have, after mature deliberation, diligent en⯑quiry, and minute inveſtigation, diſcovered to be the grand object of your pamphlet. I will not ſay you wiſh to confuſe one of the moſt ſimple and leaſt complicated queſtions ever agitated; but this I am at liberty to believe, that if your pamphlet is read with approbation, it will have that effect: I will not aſſert that your intention is for ſome malicious purpoſe, to cauſe delay in this country; but this I have a right to declare, that if your reaſoning be adopted it will produce delay—the adage is in my favour—I think it dangerous. When, Sir, a people are convinced that their rights are withheld, they cannot, if capable, be too ſudden in their reſolves; and give me leave to remind you, that Ireland is now in this ſituation, that her ſucceſs depends on expedition; de⯑liberation, diſcuſſion and inveſtigation, may [16] be the political motto of your country; I truſt, ‘"carpe diem!"’ will be that of mine; but meet our wiſhes, and you will find this maxim verified by a nation—‘"the brave are always generous."’

Conſidering, Sir, how ill-informed you were of your road, you have ventured to travel a conſiderable way, though you do not appear to have gained much ground. I ſhall not attempt to follow you, for you ſeem to me to be as little acquainted with the place you would go to, as of the road you are to travel; you have been taking the air in a labyrinth of your own creating, and after having tripped over many a path which led to nothing, you at length find yourſelf at the point from whence you ſet out.

However, Sir, as your intentions ſeem to be good, though the effect of your opinion being purſued might be otherwiſe, I have, in reading your performance, endeavoured to reſcue the text from all the prittineſſes of [17] point and antitheſis, and to free it from a number of barren premiſes and inconſequent concluſions; the reſult is, you think, Ireland is diſtreſſed and ought to be relieved. But to pronounce upon the cauſe of that di⯑ſtreſs, or to point out the mode of relief, requires in your idea ſo much precaution, ſuch diligent enquiry, ſuch candid recollection, ſuch minute inveſtigation, and ſuch mature deliberation, that, you doubt, you heſitate, your letter ſeems the chance medley of your pen, and in the end you give no opinion at all about the matter. To ſatisfy theſe doubts, Sir, as well as to give you, as far as my endea⯑vours will permit, a little of that informati⯑on you ſeem ſo deſirous of obtaining, I flatter myſelf you will be obliged to me, ſhould I comment upon ſuch paſſages in your pamphlet as I have already taken notice of, or ſhall hereafter have occaſion to quote.

[18] In the firſt inſtance you tell us a kind and manly confidence in the EQUITY AND WISDOM of Great Britain ſhould regulate our expec⯑tations;—if, Sir, the equity and wiſdom of the people of Great Britain could afford us any relief, confidence in them might indeed be well placed; but the peo⯑ple of Great Britain have long ſince forgot to take the management of their own affairs into their own hands, and I dare ſay you are one of thoſe who would be very ſorry if they were to renew the practice. I am con⯑vinced therefore you did not mean the wiſ⯑dom and equity of the Britiſh people.—Is it upon thoſe qualities in the Britiſh miniſtry that you wiſh us to rely?—Now, Sir, much as we reſpect them, for we, as well as the Americans, are certainly under great obli⯑gations to them, yet I think we ſhall ſcarce⯑ly agree with them in our ideas of wiſdom and equity.

As to WISDOM, WE think a part of it con⯑ſiſts in profiting by experience,—in this we [19] differ widely from the miniſtry, and it is becauſe we think it wiſe to profit by expe⯑rience, that we do not chooſe to place any confidence in miniſterial wiſdom. As to EQUITY—I believe it will be found that our notions on this head differ ſtill more wide⯑ly from their's. We in this country annex certain ideas of diſtributive juſtice to the term equity—I do not ſay we are right in do⯑ing ſo, I would not diſpute the authority of miniſters, I only ſay the fact is ſo. Now I have endeavoured to find out the miniſte⯑rial meaning of the word equity, and have for this purpoſe conſulted the Britiſh ſta⯑tutes by way of dictionary. I there find that equity means a monopoly of trade and of liberty; it means authority without juſtice, and power without right; it is to treat fel⯑low ſubjects, whom local circumſtances ſe⯑parate from you, and inferiority of num⯑bers place in your power, as the ſubjects of ſubjects, or rather as unarmed natural ene⯑mies. It is bountiful to ſuffer us to ex⯑iſt, [20] and humanely to deprive us of the means of exiſtence; it is to force us to purchaſe commodities, and to prohibit our earning the purchaſe money—it is to expect a re⯑venue from the poverty miniſters would entail, which could be yielded only by the affluence they would prevent—it is, in ſhort, to ſay, that as far as your power can reach, liberty, independence, dignity, wealth and commerce ſhall belong to you excluſively:—dependence, poverty and reſtrictive laws ſhall be the portion of all who are connected with you. Theſe, Sir, as far as I could col⯑lect from the dictionary I conſulted, have been the various miniſterial meanings of the word equity for two centuries back—perhaps it is very well explained there; but this is not exactly the ſort of equity in which we can place much confidence.

I ſhall not object to the next paſſage I have taken notice of, in which you proceed or attempt to ſtate your reaſonings, imme⯑diately after having acknowledged that [21] without fuller information you are preclud⯑ed from all farther reaſoning upon the ſub⯑ject:—you might ſay that this would be carping at a term, that I ſhould conſider what the fact was, and that no one who was not determined to cavil, could poſſibly miſtake what followed—for reaſoning.—I admit the force of the obſervation, and ſhall proceed in my review of ſome other paſſages.

You ſay the queſtions to be aſked relative to the granting of a free trade to Ireland are indeed ‘"numerous, nice and intricate; theoretical deductions will not aſſiſt us; trading eſtabliſhments, regulations of com⯑merce, and the whole ſyſtem of revenue are involved in the propoſition:"’ You expreſs your fears at ‘"reverſing the ſyſtem purſued by wiſe ſtateſmen during two centuries"’ You dread ‘"the giving a ſudden ſhock or precipitate revulſion to the courſe of Britiſh trade, com⯑merce and revenue:"’ And after having made ſome conceſſions in our fa⯑vour, [22] they are done away by your obſerving ‘"that all thoſe theorems of trade, however plauſible they may appear on paper, muſt be received ſubject to much previous exa⯑mination, and a diligent diſcuſſion of all collateral circumſtances;"’ that you are not ‘"upon a ſudden outery, which like other commercial complaints may be fallacious or ill-founded, to make a ſudden revolution in all the practical ſyſtem of your trade; and upon the ſpur of a moment to overturn a plan of commerce and revenue which has been the work of ages."’

What, Sir, is it you mean by a ſudden outery, that may be fallacious or ill-founded? Do you call, Sir, the unanimous addreſſes of both houſes of parliament a ſudden outery? Do you call the unanimous voice of the whole peo⯑ple of Ireland a ſudden outery that may be fallacious or ill-founded?—Read your ſtatutes, Sir, which with a clerk-like care you have collected, and ſeem to have made ſo little [23] uſe of—look at their effects—then tell us—the outery may be fallacious and ill⯑founded. Your want of information, Sir, will not avail you here for your want of reſ⯑pect towards the legiſlature of Ireland, and the feelings of a whole people.

I aſk pardon, Sir, for the warmth into which you have betrayed me;—perhaps you were not aware of the force of what you ſaid;—and as you have in moſt places uſed a multiplicity of words without ſaying any thing,—you have here, without knowing it, ſaid a great deal in a few. It muſt be owned you for the moſt part ſhelter yourſelf under a number of laboured ex⯑preſſions, deſigned for ornament, and deſti⯑tute of meaning;—you would hide the deficiency of your matter in the tinſel of your ſtile;—like a ſhining bubble, gaudy, light and empty, you float upon the ſurface of a ſubject, to enter deeply into which ſeems to require talents more weighty than your's. [24] You have indeed endeavoured to render the queſtions relative to the granting A FREE TRADE to Ireland, numerous, nice and in⯑tricate—you boldly aſſert that the propoſi⯑tion involves in it the whole ſyſtem of the Britiſh revenue.—I think, Sir, as you diſ⯑claim ‘"all haſty inferences and deciſive aſſer⯑tions,"’ you might at leaſt have made an at⯑tempt at proving one of ſo much importance as the preſent. But, Sir, your ſubſequent arguments, if they tend to any thing, tend to prove that the Britiſh revenue has little or nothing to do with the queſtion; and I will undertake to ſhew that your fears of reverſing the ſyſtem purſued by wiſe ſtateſ⯑men during two centuries, and of giving a ſudden ſhock or precipitate revulſion to the courſe of Britiſh trade, are equally ground⯑leſs. This grand queſtion of granting a free trade to Ireland, which you have en⯑deavoured to involve in ſo many difficulties, is contained in the ſimpleſt propoſition ima⯑ginable [25] —LET THE REGULA⯑TION OF THE IRISH TRADE BE LEFT TO THE WISDOM AND EQUITY OF THE IRISH LEGISLATURE.

A FREE TRADE, Sir, the meaning of which you have affected not to comprehend, is ſuch a trade as FREEMEN ought of right to poſſeſs—it is a trade ſubject to no re⯑ſtrictions in the country to which it belongs, but ſuch, as the inhabitants of that coun⯑try, being freemen, have through their repre⯑ſentatives, conſented ſhould take place—What, Sir, is the meaning of the term FREE COUNTRY?—Your viſit to AMERICA may poſſibly have helped you to comprehend, however unknown to you before:—Is it not, Sir, a country ſubject to no laws but thoſe to which the inhabitants ſhall have directly or virtually given their aſſent? ought not this to have led you to what was meant by a FREE TRADE. Folly [26] itſelf could never have conceived it to imply, a trade ſubject to no reſtrictions, any more than that a free country ſhould be a country ſubject to no law; when then you call it ‘"an undefined expreſſion"’ you talk ignorantly—it is an expreſſion as de⯑finite and determinate as in the nature of language can exist.—Now, Sir, let us exa⯑mine what effect the leaving the regula⯑tion of the Iriſh trade to the WISDOM AND EQUITY of the IRISH legiſlature would have upon the revenue and commerce of Great Britain.

The propoſition, as far as it relates to Great Britain, can be conſidered only in two points of view; firſt, how far it can effect the Britiſh commerce and revenue, with regard to the trade immediately car⯑ried on between Great Britain and Ireland; ſecondly, how far it may interfere with the trade of Great Britain to foreign parts.—I ſhall here, Sir, remark once for all, that [27] the preſent propoſition has no relation whatever to the trade of Great Britain with any of the Britiſh ſettlements or co⯑lonies in Aſia, Africa or America (I include America only for argument ſake)—If Great Britain admits Ireland to a participa⯑tion of her trade to ſuch ſettlements or colonies, the Iriſh will conſider it as a favour to which of right they have no claim, for which they will not only be grateful, but will be ready to make every equitable compenſation in their power; this, however, muſt be a matter of future diſcuſſion, and muſt reſt upon the mutual agreements of the parliaments of both kingdoms, and this may probably be a matter of mature deliber⯑ation.

With regard then to the firſt queſtion before us, the effect a free trade to Ireland will have upon the Britiſh revenue imme⯑diately reſulting from the Britiſh trade to Ireland; I conceive, as the produce of [28] the Britiſh colonies and ſettlements is left totally out of the queſtion, there is but one inconvenience to Great Britain which can poſſibly ariſe.

You have remarked, Sir, that though Ireland has at all times had full liberty to manufacture goods for her own conſumption; wonderful favour! generous indulgence! Was there no mature deliberation, no minute inveſtigation, in Britiſh councils, that this liberty has ſo long exiſted?

But though Ireland, you ſay, has had this liberty, the conſumers have hitherto found it eaſier to purchaſe from England many articles both of luxury and conveni⯑ence than to make them at home;—the effect then of a free exportation of Iriſh manufactures to foreign countries would, probably, be a conſiderable improvement in their quality and workmanſhip, ſo that the Iriſh conſumer would no longer be [29] induced to purchaſe ſimilar manufactures from England—the value of the exports of which to Ireland would be in that caſe a net loſs to Great Britain—agreed.—I will admit this to be one of the conſe⯑quences of freedom of trade to Ireland—I will not advantage myſelf by aſſertion and ſay there is no juſtice in the obſerva⯑tion, and that it ſhould not hold—I will allow it to go much further in theory than I am convinced it will in practice—what then?—is it only a free trade that can be productive of ſuch conſequences, and are theſe neceſſarily prevented by de⯑priving us of it?—do they not already exiſt to their utmoſt extent, although we have no free trade? have not our non-impor⯑tation agreements already produced in this reſpect the very effects which you might apprehend from granting Ireland a free trade?—it is, therefore, fair to conclude, that as far as relates to the commerce imme⯑diately carried on between the two king⯑doms, [30] no additional loſs or inconvenience could reſult to Great Britain from the grant.

Now, Sir, as theſe non-importation agree⯑ments were founded in neceſſity, not choice; as they were entered into in order to give employment to thouſands of ſtarv⯑ing manufacturers, the probability is, that as ſoon as we can find ſufficient ſale in foreign markets for our manufactures, to keep our manufacturers fully employed, we ſhall again reſort to England for ſuch commodities, as from the infant ſtate of many of our manufactures, it will require much time before they can be brought to any equal degree of perfection in this coun⯑try; ſo that, far from being detrimental to Great Britain, it is by means only of allow⯑ing a free trade to Ireland, that Great Britain can ever hope to recover the ad⯑vantages ſhe formerly derived from her commerce with this kingdom.

[31] With regard to the ſecond queſtion, how far freedom of trade to Ireland may inter⯑fere with the trade of Great Britain to fo⯑reign parts, I ſhall only quote on the oc⯑caſion a few paſſages from your pamphlet, which, from a comparative view with the reſt of your letter, I ſhould think had been quo⯑tations made by you:—‘"It is now well underſtood that the flouriſhing of neigh⯑bouring nations in their trade is to our advantage; and that if we could extin⯑guiſh their induſtry and manufactures, our own would languiſh;—if we are capable of looking beyond the extent of a ſingle, ſhopboard, we cannot conſider the Iriſh as rivals in intereſt, even though they ſhould become our aſſociates in lucrative purſuits.’

‘"Sir Matthew Decker (who wrote upon ſome points with ſingular ability) was clearly of opinion that the reſtraints on the Iriſh woollen contributed in their ef⯑fects to diminiſh the foreign trade of [32] Great Britain,"’ and finally, ‘"it ſeems de⯑monſtrable, that the export of native manufactured commodities from any one part of the king's dominions, muſt be ad⯑vantageous to the whole, wherever the burdens and duties are ſo regulated as to leave no excluſive advantage; for that again would operate as a monopoly."’

Now, Sir, what is become of that chain of difficulties with which you endeavoured to incloſe the queſtion? How is the whole ſyſ⯑tem of the Britiſh revenue involved in it?—Where is the neceſſity for all that delay, caution, deliberation, and mature diſcuſſion upon which you deſcant ſo much?

I think, Sir, it is evident that this queſtion, which according to you, is of a nature ſo very intricate and difficult, may be reduced to a very narrow compaſs.—The demand of Ireland for a free trade, means nothing more than that all commercial regulations [33] in Ireland ſhould be left to the wiſdom and equity of the Iriſh legiſlature:—This would effect England only in two ways; firſt, it might her exports to Ireland. Secondly, it might interfere with her trade with fo⯑reign powers. As to the firſt of theſe, I have ſhewn that our NON-IMPORTATION agreements, in their operations, are already productive of the ſame effects to a great⯑er extent.

As to the ſecond, you have yourſelf furniſhed very good arguments to prove that the apprehenſions of England on that account are groundleſs.

With regard to any participation of trade, that Great Britain may think pro⯑per to allow to Ireland, I have already ſaid, that this forms no part of the de⯑mand of Ireland for a free trade, but is a point which muſt be referred to future diſcuſſion; probably the beſt means of ſet⯑tling [34] it, would be to appoint deputations from the parliaments of both kingdoms, who ſhould determine upon the conceſſi⯑ons to be made by both, and upon the commercial regulations to be eſtabliſhed for the common benefit of the whole em⯑pire.

I have hitherto, in ſpeaking of the ſub⯑ject of the Iriſh free trade, uſed your ex⯑preſſions, that it ſhould be allowed, given, or granted by Great Britain.—I have done this merely to comply with the uſual ſtile of ſpeech upon the occaſion; but had you condeſcended to viſit this country, before you ventured to write upon it, you would have ſeen, from the preſent ſituation and ſpirit of the peo⯑ple, that, to talk of an Engliſh parlia⯑ment allowing a kingdom poſſeſſed of a complete legiſlature within herſelf, the uſe of her own ports—to talk of the re⯑preſentatives of the freeholders of Eng⯑land, [35] giving leave to the people of Ire⯑land, who acknwledge no ſuch authority, to export their own manufactures, or to import ſuch merchandize as they ſhall think proper to import—I ſay, Sir, that had you condeſcended to viſit this country, you would have perceived, that to talk thus is to talk idly.

A free trade, ſuch as I have defined it to be, the people of Ireland do not aſk of Great Britain as a favour, they demand it as a right—they conceive that no power upon earth, excepting their own legiſlature, conſiſting of the king, lords and commons of Ireland, poſſeſs a right to ſhut up their ports.—When they demand a free trade, they do not addreſs the Engliſh parliament in their legiſla⯑tive capacity to repeal reſtrictive laws;—they addreſs you as a neighbouring na⯑tion, to diſavow an odious uſurpation, equal⯑ly impolitic and unjuſt, to diſclaim not [36] laws but arbitrary illegal determinations, which nothing but your being poſſeſſed of a fleet, and our want of one, could have inſpired you with the injuſtice to maintain.

We would requeſt our ſovereign, the king of Ireland, that he would not ſuffer certain veſſels belonging to his Britannic majeſty, (commonly called revenue cut⯑ters) to board, in a piratical manner, the ſhips belonging to Iriſh ſubjects; for, when ſuch cutters, under pretence of ſearching for goods, the exportation of which from Ireland is prohibited only by the arbitrary reſolves of the Britiſh parliament, and not by any Iriſh law, ſuch veſſels act without law, and are therefore pirates.

This doctrine may appear new to you, Sir, but it would be prudent in your patrons to recollect, that it is a doctrine, [37] adopted by three millions of people.—When you ſpeak then, of Ireland's be⯑ing ‘"a jewel in the Britiſh crown,"’ you ſeem to forget that Ireland has a diadem of her own—plundered in⯑deed it may have been by the uſurped power of a foreign legiſlature; but, ſtripped and unadorned as it is, it can ſtill confer power and dignity on the wearer.—The HONOUR, Sir, of this diadem, is now guarded by FIFTY THOUSAND ARMED FREEMEN.