Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T13:19:22.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Irish smuggling in the eighteenth century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

F.G. James
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the work of Beer, or at least since the studies of Andrews and Harper, no serious historian has failed to recognize that the British mercantile system did not bear too heavily upon the American colonies before 1763. In the first place, some regulations either directly and intentionally, or indirectly and unintentionally, fostered colonial development. In the second place, enforcement was often so lax and evasion so common that a number of regulations Lvere practically inoperative. Yet though the beneficent effects of ‘salutary neglect’ upon the American colonies have long been accepted, writers on Irish history have continued to assume that the mercantile system was applied to Ireland with devastating effectiveness. Was this indeed true? Or was British mercantilism in Ireland mitigated in the same ways as in the overseas colonies —by compensating advantages and by evasion? The present article concerns itself only with the latter point, the question of enforcement and evasion of British restrictions on Irish trade.

Type
Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 48 , September 1961 , pp. 299 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Beer, G.L., Commercial policy of England towards the colonies (N. Y., 1893), pp. 153–58Google Scholar and British commercial policy, 1754–65 (N.Y., 1907), pp. 193–201; Andrews, C.M., The colonial background of the American revolution (New Haven, 1924), ch. IIGoogle Scholar; Harper, L.A., The English navigation laws (N.Y., 1939), ch. XIXGoogle Scholar; Dickerman, Oliver M., The navigation acts and the American revolution (Philadelphia, 1951), ch. III.Google Scholar Both Harper and Dickerman tend to feel that the extent of colonial smuggling has been exaggerated.

2 Froude, , Ire., 1. 448 Google Scholar; Lecky, , Eng., 2. 232–3.Google Scholar

3 O’Brien, , Econ. hist. Ire., 18th cent., pp. 186–8.Google Scholar Murray, Commer. relations, goes so far as to state that Irish wool smuggling in the 18th century was insignificant.

4 Gipson, Lawrence H., The British empire before the American revolution, 1 (Caxton, Idaho, 1936), eh. VII, especially pp. 219 ff.Google Scholar Neither Edmund Curtis (A history of Ireland, 1936) nor Beckett, J.C. (A short history of Ireland, 1952)Google Scholar discusses smuggling, and Constan tia Maxwell, , Country and town in Ireland under the Georges (rev. ed., 1949), only mentions it (p. 141).Google Scholar

5 For example : ‘The Cheshire weaver’ [James Digges Latouche], Anglia restaurata, or the advantages that must accrue to the nation by effectually putting a stop to the detestable and ruinous practice of smuggling wool from England and Ireland to France etc. (London, 1727), Bridges, George, Plain dealing, or the whole method of wool smuggling clearly discovered (London, 1744)Google Scholar; Janssen, Stephen T., Smuggling laid open (London, 1763),Google Scholar Adam Smith, Wealth of nations, hk Vl ch. II (pp. 415–17 in Bohn edition, 1925).

6 Oxenford, John, ‘Essay toward finding the ballance of our whole trade annually from Christmas 1698 to Chrismas 1719’ in Clark, G.N., Guide to English commercial statistics, 1696–1782 (Royal Historical Society), p. 114.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., p. 34.

8 Ramsey, G.D., ‘The smuggler’s trade : a neglected aspect of English commercial development’, R. Hist. Soc. Trans. (1952), series 5, 2. 135–6.Google Scholar

9 Cole, WA., ‘Trends in eighteenth-century smuggling’ in Econ. Hist. Rev., new series, 10 (1957–8), pp. 405–6.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., p. 408.

11 Mantoux, Paul, The industrial revolution in the eighteenth century (1928), pp. 197–8.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., pp. 88–9. Wool smuggling continued well into the 19th century. Glapham, J.H., An economic history of modern Britain, 1, 2nd ed. (1932), pp. 247–8.Google Scholar

13 Dobbs, Arthur, Essay on the trade and improvement of Ireland (Dublin, 1729), pp. 142–5.Google Scholar

14 On ‘Informations’ see Holdsworth, WS., A history of English law, 4. 236–45,Google Scholar also Beresford, M.W., ‘The common informer, the penal statutes and economic regulation’, in Econ. Hist. Rev., new series, 10, pp. 228–9.Google Scholar

15 A good discussion of fraudulent practices is found in Baker, TC., ‘Smuggling in the 18th century, the Scottish tobacco trade’, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 62 (1954), pp. 388–9.Google Scholar For a contemporary comment on official collusion see Gentlemen’s Magazine, Apr. 1745, pp. 205–6.

16 References to English or British statutes in this article are followed by ‘(Eng.)’; otherwise all statutes are Irish.

17 14 & 15 Chas II, c. 9, ss. 4–17, 17 & 18 Chas Π, c. 12. I Win & Mary, c. 34, 2 Wm & Mary, c. 14, s. 2, 3 & 4 Win & Mary, c. 15, 7 & 8 Wm III, ce. 22 and 30, 8 Wm III. c. 3, 9 & 10 Wm III, c. 21 (Eng).

18 1 Anne sess. 1, c. 21, 2 & 3 Anne, c. 14, 6 Anne, c. 3, 10 Anne, c. 19, s. 97, 5 Geo. I, c. 11, 6 Geo. II, c. 13, 19 Geo. II, c. 34 (Eng.).

19 6 Anne c. 1, s. 4; 2 Geo. I, c. 18, 4 Geo. I, c. 6, ss. 4–5, 6 Geo. I, c. 8, 12 Geo. I, c. 2.

20 Geo. II, c. 6; 3 Geo. II, c. 5, s. 1; 5 Geo. II, c. 3; 7 Geo. II, c. 3; 9 Geo. II, c. 6, ss. 8–10; 11 Geo. II, c. 13; 13 Geo. II, c. 3; 15 Geo. II, c. 3; 17 Geo. II, c. 7; 19 Geo. II, c. 4, 21 Geo. II, c. 4, 23 Geo. II, c. 3; 25 Geo. II, c. 9; 29 Geo. II, c. 3; 31 Geo. II, c. 6; 33 Geo. II, c. 10; 1 Geo. III, c. 7; 3 Geo. III, c. 21; 5 Geo. III, c. 16; 7 Geo. III, c. 27, ss. 10–13.

21 11 & 12 Geo. III, c. 7.

22 17 & 18 Chas II, c. 12.

23 6 Geo. I, c. 8, s. 4.

24 12 Geo. I, c. 2, s. 1.

25 1 Geo. II, c. 2, s. 8.

26 5 Geo. II, c. 3, s. 1.

27 31 Geo. II, c. 6, s. 1.

28 11 & 12 Geo. III, c. 7, s. 16.

29 Magrane, v Gilbourne, (1794), Irish term reports, 1. 135–43.Google Scholar This was an action of trespass against a custom official for illegal seizure of the plaintiff’s goods. An unofficial account of an earlier case (involving tobacco smuggling) is found in a pamphlet in the Yale Univ. library, The case of Henry Archer of Ross in the county of Wexford, merchant, dated 29 Sept. 1735, but with no place of publication. On the Archer case see also Commons jn. : Ire., vi. 125, 177, 547.

30 English reports, cxlv, Exchequer division, i, 574–695. Examples of cases involving actions against customs officials are Bill v Robinson (plea 82), Etriche v. an officer of the revenue (plea 113), Barkley et al v. Walters (plea 289), Penny v. Bailey (plea 392), examples involving perjury of crown witnesses are rex v. Belling (plea 256) and Penny v. Bailey (plea 392). Three cases which suggest large scale organization among smugglers are Attorney general v. Flower (plea 302), Attorney general v. Woodmass (plea 320) and Attorney general v. Lake (plea 355).

31 14 & 15 Chas II, c. 9, s. 8.

32 1 Geo. II, c. 6, s. 4.

33 5 Geo. II, c. 3, s. 15.

34 13 & 14 Geo. Ill, c. 8 ss. 4–6.

35 Dublin Eveking Post, 22–6 July, 1735, p. 4.

36 21 Geo. II, c. 4, s. 2.

37 23 Geo. II, c. 3, s. 4.

38 29 Geo. II, c. 3, s. 3.

39 31 Geo. II, c. 6, ss. 2–3; 33 Geo. II, c. 10, s. 20.

40 7 Geo. III, c. 27, s. 10.

41 12 Geo. I, c. 2, s. 1; 17 Geo. II, c. 7, s. 2; 19 Geo. II, c. 4, s. 4; 21 Geo. II, c. 4, s. 7; 23 Geo. II, c. 3, s. 3.

42 23 Geo. II, c. 3, s. 7; 31 Geo. II, c. 6, s. 15. On smuggling on the Isle of Man see Jarvis, Rupert G., ‘Illicit trade with the Isle of Man’, in Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, 58 (1945–6), pp. 245–67.Google Scholar Elizabeth E. Hoon believes that smuggling continued to thrive even after the crown took over the island (The organization of the English customs system, 1696–1786, N.Y., 1938, p. 170).

43 10 Anne, c. 19, s. 97 (Eng.).

44 6 Geo. I, c. 21, s. 34 (Eng.).

45 12 Geo. I, c. 2, s. 19.

46 19 Geo. II, c. 34 (Eng.). On British penalties see Radzinowicz, L., A history of the English criminal law and its administration from 1750 (N.Y., 1948), pp. 626–7.Google Scholar

47 25 Geo. Ill, c. 34, s. 8.

48 5 Geo. Ill, c. 16, s. 25.

49 10 & 11 Wm III, c. 10, s. 12 (Eng.).

50 6 Geo. II, c. 13, s. 4 (Eng.).

51 Zook, G.F., ‘Economic relations of England and Ireland, 16601750’ in The historical outlook, 13 (1922), p. 239.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 239; Cal. S.P. col., 1685–88, p. 152.

53 Jarvis, Rupert C. (ed.), Customs letter-books of the port of Liverpool 1711–1813 (Chetham Society, Liverpool, 1954), pp. 35–6, 41, 43–4, 94, 114–5.Google Scholar Most of the collectors’ complaints deal with tobacco smuggling. Ireland’s importance in this trade is stressed by Rive, Alfred, ’A short history of tobacco smuggling’ in Economic History, 4 (1929), pp. 557–8, 561.Google Scholar

54 5 Geo. I, c. 11, s. 12 (Eng.). For a similar distrust of Irish enforcement see 12 Geo. Ill, c. 55 (Eng.).

55 Rev. Brett, Jasper, The sin of with-holding tribute by running of goods (Dublin, 1721), p. 20.Google Scholar A copy of this sermon is in the Yale Univ. library.

56 Ibid., p. 26.

57 Froude, Ire., i, 473.

58 Dublin Evening Post, 31 Dec.-4 Jan., 1734/35, p. 4. The murder of a supposed customs official in Belfast is reported in the Boston Weekly News-Letter, 5–12 Apr., 1733, p. 1. There were of course incidents of violence in England too. See Gentlemen’s Magazine, Mar. 1745, p. 163. From evidence laid before a committee of the British Commons it appears that large amounts of Irish cloth were being smuggled to Portugal. Hist. MSS. Com., Egmont Mss., i. 130; ii. 26–7.

59 H. Littleton to Fisher Littleton, 15 Apr., 1737, English P.R.O., State Papers 63, vol. 400, f. 11.

60 Dobbs, Arthur, Essay on the trade and improvement of Ireland, p. 12.Google Scholar

61 Journal of commissioners for trade and plantations, iv. 215, 385, 387; vii. 3–4, 9, 270–1, 273, 279, 381–2, 392–5, 397–8, 400, 404–5, 410; viii. 8. Commons’ jn., xxiii. 673; xxiv. 84, 272.

62 Egmont MSS., 1, 48–9, 77, 156, 177–8, 189.

63 Report of the committee of commons appointed June, 1745, pp. 132–4. Both this and the 1733 report are included in The first report from the committee appointed to enquire into illicit practices used in defrauding the revenue, December 1783 (London, 1783).

64 There was a David John Barry elected to the Irish commons in 1727 (Commons’ jn., Ire., vi. 191).

65 Froude, i. 447–51, 460–62.

66 Report of the commons committee to enquire into the frauds and abuses in the customs, 1733, pp. 21–2; Liverpool customs letter book, p. 23; Dobbs, , Essay on the trade and improvement of Ireland, pp. 142–44.Google Scholar

67 Cal S.P. col, Amer. and’W. Indies, 1699, p. 239.

68 Clark, G.N., Guide to English commercial statistics, 1696–1782, p. 67.Google Scholar

69 Dobbs, , Essay on the trade and improvement of Ireland, p. 11 Google Scholar; Cal. S.P. col, Amer, and W. Indies, 1732, p. 49; Commons’ jn. Ire., iv. 611, 638; v. 117, 143, 521, 529.