The Ulster Scots people

[Jim]

Regarding "civlisation" why do some people believe Ireland would not have "civilised" with the rest of Europe? Or industrialise for that matter. IMO Britain held Ireland back from modernising in its own right as anything of importance went to London first. Same in Scotland and certain parts of England. Ireland was an island with a very long history and culture, regardless of Britains annexation.

When Britain brought Ireland into the union, it did two things: it brought onto itself the responsability and direction for the people, land, economy, agriculture, law and future industry of Ireland.

During the industrial revolution in Britain particularly, everything went through five cities, London, Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol/Liverpool (depending on the decade), and Dublin. The British were very irresponsable in the treatment of the Irish people and their own people on the "mainland" that didnt live in any of these cities. Was it a sign of the times? Yes, much of Europe was the same, but the difference is Ireland would have had the capability to progress at the same rate as the rest of Europe, maybe even further because of its location between Europe, Britain and America, but did not have the power to do so as the British Governments of the day favoured Bristol, Liverpool and Southampton as their main ports, ignoring Dublin, and ignoring Belfast unless it suited their own needs, regardless of Irish opinion.

[Blue Angel]

Thank you Earl for that earlier post, the point about the British not exsisting was exactly what I wanted to get across but you enlarged on it more eloquently. The French Normans were still busy arguing with the Saxons in the 1100's - the Normans actually ressurected an old law of their own imposing fines on local populations - if any Norman was killed openly or secretly the local villagers had to pay a heavy collective fine. Also in the late 11th century the Normans had been busy brutally supressing Saxon revolts in the north of England. Look up the Harrying of the North in English history to see how brutal William was in conquering the north of England. The Normans didn't exactly subdue England in 10 minutes, contrary to what we learnt at school about 1066, it took them many years of constant fighting up there to get the area under control.

So Wasp you are buying into a vastly simplified and romanticised view of history yourself - just as you claim Irish people do with regards to their history.

[Wasp]

Well if you look at my posts again you will see that I DID say this ahppened to Britain from other countries and happened in other countries as well. For the sake of arguement then remove the word British and replace it with English just to keep you all happy. It was the British who united Ireland in the first place, they brought much wealth, created much wealth and business and modernized much of Ireland to bring it into line with the much more advanced mainland which can only be a good thing.

The Romans were way ahead of many countires and they brought there knowledge and modern ways to many countires which helped develop these countries as time went on. If you dont want to acknowledge Englands role in this then that is up to you and I couldnt care less if the pope himself done the same to Ulster because it was centuries ago, times were different and we have or rather should have moved on from denying our history because of secatrianism or race.

[Blue Angel]

and modernized much of Ireland to bring it into line with the much more advanced mainland which can only be a good thing.

So the British brought Ireland into line with France and the other European states then? Mainland indeed, the British isles is a collection of islands. The whole notion of 'bringing into line' is itself an interesting choice of phrase...

You're telling us not to deny our history because of 'race' but then arguing that some 'races' are inherently more civilised than others- hardly the most clear display of logical thinking I've seen this year so far.

The Norman adventurers in Ireland were more honest than colonialists who claimed to be helping other peoples 'advance' -they were straightfoward adventurers who wanted land and titles - there's a sight more integrity to that outlook in many respects.

[Wasp]

BA as usual you will take your choice of nicpicking rather than admit the historical facts that the 'English' brought much modernisation to Ireland including uniting it. Countries throughout the world were brought into line with whatever country, it happened to Britian, it happend to Ireland, it happened to many other places at a time when times were very very different to what theya re today.

You obviously have a problem with admitting historical facts which as I said is quite sad because some races were more civilized than others and these other countries brought a wealth of knowledge to countries including England such as farming, machinery, mining, keeping food, building roads, sewage systems, railroads etc etc.

During the industrial revolution Britain was a front runner and its advancements in machinery for example spread to other parts of Europe and America and the first industrialization outside Europe occurred in the British colonies that became the United States.

See what I am getting at??

[Jim]

What did happen to Britain? Was modern day Britain over-taken by other countries? No, it was not, it was overtaken by other tribes, and re-enforced by its own tribal populations from other sources, including Irish linked tribes. Again regarding industrialisation, did Britain bring Ireland to the forefront of European industrialisation? No, it did not, it did everything to keep it back fearing that a self sustaining Ireland could cause revolt, which was a major threat to the island of Britain as a back door and easy route into the west coast of Wales.

I still feel this has no bearing on Ulster Scots. If Protestants want to identify with Ulster Scots, fair enough to them, thats their choice, I've met many protestants who feel as much affinity with the Irish as they do with the Scottish or English and just dont want to be under Republican rule as a matter of principal, Wasp is not one of those people.

[Wasp]

Jim what about Londonderry? The Livery Companies, the traders and manufacturers of the City of London where "Rising generations be trayned up to useful industrie, and civilitie, learning, religion and loyalties" (taken from the honourable Irish society). Coleraine, which had amounted to no more than an old church surrounded by a few cabins, became, within ten years, a town of some 200 timber houses fortified with an earthen wall and ditch. At Culmore Point, just at the entrance to Lough Foyle, the old fort was extensively renovated and reinforced, while further upriver Derry was transformed from a collection of ruined forts and church buildings into a substantial town with 240 stone-built houses, a town hall, the Bishop's House and a free school. It was surrounded by a strong stone wall with four fortified gates. Another enduring achievement of those first builders was the erection of the Church of St Columba, later St Columb's Cathedral, which was finished in 1633.

Roads, bridges and public buildings were re-built or newly erected in an architectural style that expressed permanence and self-confidence.

The work of the Society left a lasting imprint on the landscape and much of the character and appearance of the countryside today is a direct result of those early endeavours to impose order on a largely untamed land. The native Irish had been essentially livestock farmers with nomadic habits, holding large tracts of uncultivated grazing land in common with other clansmen. Now, suddenly, there were neat arrangements of arable fields flanked by hedgerows, and mature trees. Market towns and villages had roads to connect them and stone bridges arched over the fords. The heavily-forested, free-range countryside was gone forever. The introduction of tillage farming meant much more than a new agricultural practice - it meant a whole new way of life.

[Jim]

What about it? Did rising generations do that? Not really, its a hole. Coleraine too. If we're talking about prosperity then there are only truely prosperous cities in Ireland; Dublin and Belfast, and Belfast was quite late in coming to prominance but very fast in doing so, thanks to its proximity to Glasgow, the Empires second city.

The native Irish had been primarily livestock because a. Ireland has particularly fertile ground for agriculture and b. its an island. During that time I'm not even sure if the "new world" had been discovered, which is when Ireland would have came to prominance in its own right had it been given the freedom to do so via trade. Was it not Burke (Dublin born MP of Bristol) that lost his parliament seat for sticking up for his own country as Bristol was the major British trading town and the rising prominance of Ireland was quickly dealt with so as to keep English towns the centre of the Empire? This was even pre union as far as I know. Pre 1800 at least.

TBH you make it sound as if the native Irish were thick as pigs and wouldnt know what industrialisation unless the English taught us; there were a fair few links with Spain and France at different peroids too, I'm surprised the Spanish didnt conquer the island first actually.

[Wasp]

No I am not making any Irish out to be anything, it baffles me why there is so much denial and protest about this, is it because its the old anything British. Look at the last line of my post, look at how things changed in those parts mentioned with investment etc. Many places became prosperous places throughout the world and ended up years and years later falling to an arse but that is nothing to do with this. The fact remains when the English came over they brought a vast wealth of knowledge with them that was not already here and in those times that happened to countries all over the world including England. Many countires througout the centuries were more modern and advanced than others, Britain was behind at times and Britian was infront at times in particular throughout much of the industrial revolution with various advancements in technology.

Considering this is years ago and considering what I said has been historical facts it reall does baffle me this anyone but the English attitude.

Anyway we all know Dublin got its first tar mac road a few years ago and each day horse drawn taxis are being replaced with steam powered motors. ;D ;D ;D

[earl]

ENGLISH INTERFERENCE WITH IRISH INDUSTRIES.

BY



J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL, M.A.,

CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD; BARRISTER-AT-LAW, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND CRIMINAL

LAW IN THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OF THE KING'S INNS, DUBLIN J AND AUTHOR

OF "THE IRISH PARLIAMENT: WHAT IT WAS, AND WHAT IT DID."



CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED

LONDON, PARIS, NEW YORK MELBOURNE.

1886.
[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]

PREFACE.



AGRICULTURE is at the present time almost the only
industry in Ireland. This fact has frequently been
noticed and deplored. Public men of widely different
views on other matters agree in their estimate of
Ireland's economic condition, of which they give but
one explanation. Thus Mr. Gladstone, on the intro-
duction of the Irish Land Bill in April,^i88i, spoke of
" that old and standing evil of Ireland, that land-hunger,
which must not be described as if it were merely an
infirmity "of the people for it, and really means land
scarcity."* " In Ireland," says Mr. Bright, " land, from
certain causes that are not difficult to discover, is the
only thing for the employment of the people, with the
exception of some portion of the country in the North ;
the income for the maintenance of their homes, and
whatever comfort they have, or prospect of saving
money for themselves or their families, comes from
the cultivation of the soil, and scarcely at all from those
various resources to which the people of England
have recourse in the course of their industrial lives."

vi IRISH INDUSTRIES.

" It is generally admitted, I think, on both sides of
the House," Mr. Bright observes in another debate,
"that in discussing the Irish question one fact must
always be kept in mind that is, that apart from the
land of Ireland there are few, if any, means of sub-
sistence for the population, and, consequently, there has
always been for its possession an exceptional and un-
natural demand. This, again, has led to most serious
abuses, including nearly all those constant causes of
trouble and complaint we are for ever hearing of in
Ireland."*

" The truth is," says Mr. Chaplin, from his place in
the House of Commons, "that the English Parliament
and the English people are mainly responsible for
those conditions of the country which have driven the
people to the land, and the land alone, for their
support. It was not always so ; there were other
industries in Ireland in former days, which flourished,
and flourished to a considerable extent, until they
first aroused, and were afterwards suppressed by, the
selfish fears and commercial jealousy of England
England, who was alarmed at a rivalry and competi-
tion that she dreaded at the hands and from the
resources and energy of the Irish people." f "I am
convinced that it is in the history of these cruel
laws that lies the secret of that fatal competition
for the land, in which and it may well be a just
retribution upon us the source of all the troubles


"To understand the Irish land question of to-day,"
writes Sir C. Russell, the present Attorney-General
for England, " it is necessary to look back. I have
no desire needlessly to rake up bygone wrongs.
I wish to Heaven the Irish people could forget the
past. For them it is in the main a melancholy re-
trospect. But England ought not to forget the
past until, at least, a great act of reparation has
been done. Even among men of some education in
England, remarkable ignorance of the evil wrought in
past times by England towards Ireland prevails. There
is, indeed, a vague general impression that in very
remote times England, when engaged in the endeavour
to conquer Ireland, was guilty of cruelties, as most
conquering nations are, but that those things have
done very little harm ; that their effects have ceased
to tell, and that the only purpose served by keep-
ing alive their memory is to irritate the temper of
the Irish people and prompt them to look back
rather than look forward. Emphatically I say this
is not so. The effects have not ceased. It is not
too much to say that Ireland and Irishmen of
to-day are such as English government has made
them." Sir Charles Russell then proceeds to
place foremost among " the agencies employed by
England which have left enduring evil marks upon

Ireland," "the direct legislation avowedly contrived
to hinder the development of Irish commerce and
manufactures." *

" If people felt impatient with the Irish," said Mr.
Fawcett, addressing a political meeting at Shoreditch
on November 2nd, 1881, "they should remember that
the Irish were, to a great extent, what England had
made them. If there were some Irishmen now dis-
playing bitter hostility to England, it should be re-
membered that for a long time Ireland had been
treated as if she had been a hostile or a foreign
country. A mass of vexatious restrictions were im-
posed on her industry, and it was thought that if any
branch of Irish trade interfered with English profits,
that branch of Irish trade was immediately to be dis-
couraged. For a long time, for instance, to please
the agricultural interests of this country, the impor-
tation of live cattle from Ireland was absolutely
prohibited."

These statements of leading public men are strong
evidence of the far-reaching effects upon Ireland of a
system which Mr. John Morley, writing on a literary
topic, has not hesitated to designate as " the atrocious
fiscal policy of Great Britain," f and for which Earl
Cowper, speaking at Belfast as Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, could find no gentler adjectives than "unjust
and iniquitous."

In the following pages I propose to exhibit
summarily the material injuries inflicted upon Ire-
land by the commercial or anti-commercial arrange-
ments of Great Britain. With this view, I will
endeavour to sketch in outline the political relations of
Ireland to Great Britain which rendered such arrange-
ments possible (Chap. I.) ; the principal laws made by
the English Parliament in restraint of Irish trade
stating them in a plain and popular manner (Chap.
II.) ; the opposition of the English Government to
the efforts of the Irish Parliament to promote Irish
trade (Chap. III.); the immediate effects of English
legislation on Irish trade (Chap. IV.) ; the Irish
Volunteer Movement and free trade (Chap. V.) ;
the commercial arrangements between Great Britain
and Ireland, 1782-1800 (Chap. VI.); the commercial
arrangements effected between Great Britain and Ire-
land by the Act of Legislative Union (Chap. VII.).

In this inquiry I will, as far as possible, confine
myself to an examination of the statutes, which will
speak for themselves ; to the journals of the Parlia-
ments of England and Ireland ; and to the statements
of contemporary speakers and writers whose accuracy
has not, so far as I am aware, been impeached.

Please see link for chapters
www.archive.org/stream/englishinterfere00macnuoft/englishinterfere00macnuoft_djvu.txt

[earl]

Here's just a sample from chapter 1, dealing with how the woollen industry in Ireland was destroyed.



Mr. Froude's researches lead him to a
similar conclusion : " Before the days of coal and
steam, the unlimited water-power of Ireland gave her
natural advantages in the race of manufactures, which,
if she had received fair play, would have attracted
thither thousands of skilled immigrants."

I do not propose to furnish an exhaustive statement
of the various laws passed by the English Parliament
for the avowed purpose of destroying Irish trade and
manufactures. I will deal only with the salient
features of that system whose effects are, at the present
day, sadly apparent.

Till the reign of Charles II., England placed no
restriction on Irish commerce or manufactures. " Be-
fore the] Restoration," says Lord North, in the British
House of Commons, " they (the Irish) enjoyed every
commercial advantage and benefit in common with
England."^ "Ireland," writes Hely Hutchinson,
" was in possession of the English common law and
of Magna Charta. The former secures the subject in
the enjoyment of property of every kind, and by the
latter the liberties of all the ports of tJie Kingdom
are established'' " Our trade," says Mr. Gardiner in
the Irish House of Commons, "was guaranteed by
Magna Charta, our exports acknowledged by that
venerable statute no treaty was made in which we
were not nominally or virtually included."

The first Navigation Act of 1660 put England and
Ireland on exact terms of equality. This community
of rights was emphasised by an Act of the following
year, which provided that foreign-built ships should
not have the privilege of ships belonging to England
and Ireland* " But," as Mr. Froude observes, " the
equality of privilege lasted only till the conclusion of
the settlement and till the revenue had been assigned
to the Crown." f In the amended Navigation Act of
1663, Ireland was left out. Lord North, on December 13,
1779, when Prime Minister of England, in introducing a
bill to abrogate some of the restrictions on Irish trade,
thus described the Act of 1663 : " The first commer-
cial restriction was laid on Ireland not directly, but by
a side-wind and by deductive interpretation. When
the Act (the Navigation Act of 1660) first passed
there was a general governing clause for giving bonds
to perform the conditions of the Act ; but when the
Act was amended in the 15 Car. II. the word 'Ireland
was omitted, whence a conclusion was drawn that the
Acts of the two preceding Parliaments, 12 & 13
and 14 Car. II., were thereby repealed, though it was
as clearly expressed in those Acts as it was possible
for words to convey, that ships built in Ireland,
navigated with the people thereof, were deemed
British, and qualified to trade to and from British
Plantations, and that ships built in Ireland and
navigated with his Majesty's subjects of Ireland, were
entitled to the same abatement and privileges to which
imports and exports of goods in British-made shipswere
entitled by the book of rates. Ireland was, however,
omitted in the manner he had already mentioned.
This Act, which is entitled "An Act for the
Encouragement of Trade," prohibited all exports from
Ireland to the colonies.Except victuals, servants, horses, and salt, for the fisheries of New England and Newfoundland.

It likewise prohibited the
importation of Irish cattle into England. It states
that " a very great part of the richest and best land
of this kingdom (England) is, and cannot so well
otherwise be employed and made use of as in the
feeding and fattening of cattle, and that by the
coming in of late in vast numbers of cattle already
fatted such lands are in many places much fallen,
and like daily to fall more in their rents and values,
and in consequence other lands also, to the great
prejudice, detriment, and impoverishment of this
kingdom ; "f and it imposes a penalty on every head
of great cattle imported. A subsequent British Act
declares the importation of Irish cattle into Eng-
land to be " a publick and common nuisance." J
It likewise forbids the importation of beef, pork,
or bacon. Butter and cheese from Ireland were
subsequently excluded, and the previous statute
excluding cattle was made perpetual. In 1670 the
exportation to Ireland from the English Plantations
of sugar, tobacco, cotton-wool, indigo, ginger, fustic
or other dyeing wood, the growth of the said Plan-
tations, was prohibited by statute. It is stated in
the statute that this restraint was intended by the
Act of 1663, but not effectively expressed.*

"There are," says Lord North, " anecdotes still
extant relative to the real causes of those harsh and
restrictive laws. They were supposed to have
originated in a dislike or jealousy of the growing
power of the then Duke of Ormonde, who, from his
great estate and possessions in Ireland, was sup-
posed to have a personal interest in the pros-
perity of that kingdom. Indeed, so far was this
spirit carried, whether from personal enmity to the
Duke of Ormonde, from narrow prejudices, or
a blind policy, that the Parliament of England
passed a law to prohibit the importation of Irish
lean cattle." t

An extensive and profitable cattle trade which
Ireland had established with Bristol, Milford, and
Liverpool was annihilated by this legislation. With
the restriction of her chief exports, her shipping trade
suffered a simultaneous eclipse. Such direct trade as
she retained was with France, Spain, and Portugal, as
if England wished to force her, in spite of herself, to
feel the Catholic countries to be her best friends.

Deprived of their trade, the Irish people, under
the guidance of the Duke of Ormonde, set them-
selves resolutely to improve their own manufac-
tures. " The history of Ireland," says Chief Justice
Whiteside, " for nigh half a century may be read in
the life, actions, and adventures of this able, virtuous,
and illustrious man. His chivalrous courage, his
unflinching loyalty, his disinterested patriotism, mark
him out as one of the foremost men of his
noble family, and as one of the finest characters
of his age." In 1692, Lord Sydney, the Lord-
Lieutenant, in his speech from the Throne, was able,
from his former knowledge of the country, to testify
to its vastly increased prosperity. || " The cause of
this prosperity should," says Hely Hutchinson
be mentioned. James, the first Duke of Ormonde,
whose memory should ever be revered by every friend
of Ireland, to heal the wound that this country had
received by the prohibition of the export of her cattle
to England, obtained from Charles II. a letter, dated
the 23rd of March, 1667, by which he directed that
all restraints upon the exportation of commodities of
the growth or manufacture of Ireland to foreign parts
should be taken off, but not to interfere with the
Plantation laws, or the charters to the trading com-
panies, and that this should be notified to his subjects
of this kingdom, which was accordingly done by a
proclamation from the Lord-Lieutenant and Council ;
and at the same time, by his Majesty's permission,
they prohibited the importation from Scotland of
linen, woollen, and other manufactures and commo-
dities, as drawing large sums of money out of Ireland,
and a great hindrance to manufactures.

The woollen manufacture was the "true and
natural staple of the Irish, their climate and extensive
sheep-grounds insuring to them a steady and cheap
supply of the raw material, much beyond their home
consumption." f It was cultivated for several years
after the Revolution without any interference by the
English Parliament. It had, however, long previously
excited the jealous hatred of English statesmen. " I
am of opinion/'says Lord Strafford, writing, when Lord-
Lieutenant, from Ireland to Charles I. in 1634, "that
all wisdom advises to keep this kingdom as much sub-
ordinate and dependent upon England as is possible,
and holding them from the manufacture of wool
(which, unless otherwise directed, I shall by all means
discourage), and then enforcing them to fetch their
clothing from thence, and to take their salt from the
King (being that which preserves and gives value to
all their native staple commodities), how can they de-
part from us without nakedness and beggary ? Which
is of itself so mighty a consideration that a small
profit should not bear it down." J This proposal I
will not characterise. " In 1673, Sir William Temple,
at the request of the Earl of Essex, then Viceroy of
Ireland, publicly proposed that the manufacture of
woollens (except in the inferior branches) should be
relinquished in Ireland as tending to interfere pre-
judicially with the English trade. In all probability
of suspicion that such a proposal could be received with any other feeling than that of approbation."

In 1697 a bill was introduced into the English
House of Commons, forbidding all export from Ire-
land of her woollen manufactures. It reached the
House of Lords, but Parliament was dissolved before
it passed its final stage in that assembly.

The destruction of the woollen trade is one of the
most disastrous chapters of Irish history. The cir-
cumstances attending this transaction are detailed in
an Appendix to the " Report from the Select Com-
mittee on the Linen Trade of Ireland," which was
printed on the 6th of June, 1825, by order of the
House of Commons. This paper was prepared by
Lord Oriel, who, as Mr. Foster, was Chancellor of
the Irish Exchequer and afterwards Speaker of the
Irish House of Commons. He was one of the greatest
authorities of his time on trade and finance. The
Report thus describes an incident which is, I believe,
without parallel.

[Jim]

May 8, 2009 9:51:53 GMT Wasp said:

No I am not making any Irish out to be anything, it baffles me why there is so much denial and protest about this, is it because its the old anything British. Look at the last line of my post, look at how things changed in those parts mentioned with investment etc. Many places became prosperous places throughout the world and ended up years and years later falling to an arse but that is nothing to do with this. The fact remains when the English came over they brought a vast wealth of knowledge with them that was not already here and in those times that happened to countries all over the world including England. Many countires througout the centuries were more modern and advanced than others, Britain was behind at times and Britian was infront at times in particular throughout much of the industrial revolution with various advancements in technology.

Considering this is years ago and considering what I said has been historical facts it reall does baffle me this anyone but the English attitude.

Anyway we all know Dublin got its first tar mac road a few years ago and each day horse drawn taxis are being replaced with steam powered motors. ;D ;D ;D

Its not simply a rejection of anything British, if the French or Spanish had of invaded and occupied for many centuries the same would be said about them. You're making it out that the Irish hadn't a clue until the English showed them the light and its simply not true.

[earl]

May 8, 2009 11:56:56 GMT Jim said:

You're making it out that the Irish hadn't a clue until the English showed them the light and its simply not true.

Indeed and as the link shows (with direct references to parliamentary records from that time), laws were created to ensure that Irish trade never competed with English trade. This would have also affected WASP's ancestors. Anyone on the island was worse off then if they were in England. an unnatural disadvantage was manufactured.

As far back as norman times, this was the case and as far forward as the early part of the last century. The Black and Tans deliberately attacked Irish industry during the war of independence.

[earl]

And Here's a passage which directly relates to a plea to King Billy himself about 'subjects' moving to Ireland to try and earn a living in the linen trade, and a wish to prohibit the industry. I.E. King Billy himself helped to fuck up the linen industry here, even at a cost to those ancestors who now laud him.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Accordingly an Act was passed in England,
1696 (7 & 8 Will, c. 39), for inviting foreign Pro-
testants to settle in Ireland, as the preamble recites,
and with that view enacting that the imports of all
sorts of hemp and flax, and all the productions there-
of, should from thenceforth be admitted duty free
from Ireland into England, giving a preference by
that exemption from duty to the linen manufacture
of Ireland over the foreign, estimated at the time, as
a report of the Irish House of Commons, on the nth
February, 1774, states, to be equal to 25 per cent.

" This happened in 1696, and in pursuance of the
foregoing plan both Houses of the English Parlia-
ment addressed King William on the 9th June, 1698.

" The Lords stated in their Address that ' the grow-
ing manufacture of cloth in Ireland, both by the
cheapness of all sorts of necessaries of life, and the
goodness of materials for making all manner of cloth,
doth invite your subjects of England, with their fami-
lies and servants, to leave their habitations and settle
there, to the increase of the woollen manufacture in
Ireland, which makes your loyal subjects in this king-
dom very apprehensive that the further growth of it
may greatly prejudice the said manufacture here,
by which the trade of this nation and the value of
lands will greatly decrease, and the number of your
people be much lessened here ; wherefore we humbly
beseech your most Sacred Majesty that your Majesty
would be pleased, in the most public and effectual
way that may be, to declare to all your subjects of
Ireland that the growth and increase of the woollen
manufacture there hath long and will be ever looked
upon with great jealousy by all your subjects of this
kingdom, and if not timely remedied, may occasion
very strict laws totally to prohibit and suppress the
same; and, on the other hand, if they' turn their
industry to the settling .and improving the linen
manufacture, for which generally the lands are very
proper, they shall receive all the countenance, favour,
and protection from your royal influence for the en-
couragement and promotion of the linen manufacture
to all the advantage and profit they can be capable of?

"The Commons stated their sentiments at the
same time in the following terms : ' We,* your Majesty's
most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons in
Parliament assembled, being very sensible that the
wealth and power of this kingdom do in a great mea-
sure depend on the preservation of the woollen manu-
facture as much as possible entire to this realm,
think it becomes us, like our ancestors, to be jealous
of the increase and establishment of it elsewhere,
and to use our utmost endeavours to prevent it.
And, therefore, we cannot without trouble observe
that Ireland, which is dependent on and protected
by England in the enjoyment of all they have, and
which is so proper for the linen manufacture, the
establishment and growth of which there would be
so enriching to themselves, and so profitable to Eng-
land, should of late apply itself to the woollen
manufacture, to the great prejudice of the trade of
this kingdom, and so unwillingly promote the linen
trade, which would benefit both themselves and us ;
the consequence whereof will necessitate your Parlia-
ment of England to interpose to prevent the mischief
that threatens us, unless your Majesty by your
authority and great wisdom shall find means to
secure the trade of England, by making your subjects
of Ireland to pursue the joint interests of both
kingdoms. And we do most humbly implore your
Majesty's protection and favour in this matter, that
you will make it your royal care, and enjoin all those
you employ in Ireland to make it their care, and use
their utmost diligence, to hinder the exportation of
wool from Ireland except to be imported hither, and
for discouraging the woollen manufacture and en-
couraging the linen manufacture of Ireland, to which
we shall ahvays be ready to give our utmost assistance'
His Majesty thus replied to the Commons* : * /
shall do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen
manufacture in Ireland and encourage the linen
manufacture there, and to promote the trade of Eng-
land.'


Ireland's woollen manufacture was thus sacrificed
to England's commercial jealousy.
Subsequent Acts completed this annihilation. "The next Act,"
says Lord North, after enumerating the Acts mentioned above, "was
an Act of the 5th Geo. L, the next the 5th and I2th of the late King
(Geo. II.), which last went so far as to prohibit the export of a kind of
woollen manufacture called waddings, and one or two other articles
excepted out of the loth and nth of King William ; but these three
last Acts swept everything before them." (" Parliamentary Debates,"
xv. 176, 177.)

[Wasp]

Jim I am not making out the Irish did not have a clue or anyother nation for that matter, I am saying it is a historical fact that countries throughout the world modernized other countries and helped advance them, that does not mean in every single aspect of life, it could have been agricutural technology, builidng of roads and bridges, more advanced sewerage systems, more advanced machinery for industry and Londonderry and surrounding areas are a fine exapmle of what I am talking about. To say the English simply held the Irish back is untrue in the samway England was not held back when other countries made advancements there whether it was road building or farming etc. There very well may be grey areas that are diputed and some not disputed but by and large the English did help advance Ireland in many ways but that doesnt mean the Irish had nothing and were thick and hadnt a clue etc. The last line in one of my posts stated;

'The introduction of tillage farming meant much more than a new agricultural practice - it meant a whole new way of life.'

This is what I am getting at and if people here want to argue the points I have made then that is their choice but it is historical facts that I am stating and on another point the fact the English had faster ships it made them competing for US trade all the better for them.
They led the industiral revolution in many ways and lets not forget England also played catch up to other nations. Does that mean the English were thick or hadnt a clue?? No it doesn't and the same goes for the Irish in this.

Earl whatever happened to my ancestors happened, I am not going to judge my debates or politics on what happened to my ancestors. For all I know they could all have come from Ireland or they may originate from England/Scotland or elsewhere in Europe. The only thing I would hate is if any of my ancestors were from flamin Wales. ;D ;D ;D