a sword in the hands of a madman. He was among the most zealous advocates for the maintenance of the war against France; in 1797, the firm of Yates & Peel contributed the magnificent sum of ten thousand pounds to the voluntary subscriptions for the support of the war. In 1798, besides the patronage which he extended to the Lancashire Fencibles, and the Tamworth Armed Association, he placed himself at the head of six companies, mostly men in his employment, which were styled the Bury Royal Volunteers.

In 1785, Mr. Peel, with several other leading manufacturers, had given evidence at the bar of the House of Commons, against the ministerial propositions for removing the principal restrictions on the commercial intercourse between England and Ireland; much importance was therefore attributed to his opinion on the commercial clauses in the Act of Union, and on May 1st, 1799, he addressed the House of Commons on the subject, at, as it is reported, the personal request of the minister.

He said that he had attended to the evidence laid before the House, and he so much respected the grievances of the manufacturers in the woollen trade, that he should be happy to see them removed, if it could be done without endangering the general plan of union. He would observe that the cotton manufactory in Ireland had an equal importance with the woollen manufactory of this country. There was a rivalship between them, not of an invidious, but of a friendly nature. In 1785, he had, at the bar of the House, expressed his fears of the cotton manufacturers of Ireland interfering with this country, from the circumstance of the low price of labour in Ireland. He equally deprecated such interference with respect to the woollen manufactory; he considered it as likely to destroy the good effects of a union. He had hoped that it would be the means of bringing the two countries together by a closer connexion, of producing an advantageous

co-operation between the manufacturers, and of rendering the manufactures of each country cheaper, and the supply more permanent; but he saw prejudices in the way. This country, aware that the low price of labour in Ireland was favourable to the exertions of industry, was apprehensive that by the introduction of machinery to assist that industry, Ireland would outvie us in our own manufactures, while Ireland, on the contrary, was apprehensive of an intercourse with England. That apprehension had unfortunately been increased by an expression of a member of parliament in that country, Mr. Beresford, who had asserted that a weak country always stood in need of protection against a rich one. Nothing could be more fallacious than such an observation. It was like a poor family shutting the door against a rich and benevolent man who came to their relief. England was in want of no aid to enable her to secure her independence; it therefore could not be supposed that she was actuated by selfish considerations. He should have hoped that the union would have been adopted on terms mutually advantageous. Ireland was in possession of a valuable staple manufacture; but he was well assured that it would not have been in so prosperous a situation, but for the assistance it received from the manufactures of this country. Yet, with all the advantages Ireland received from England, she refused to admit our calicocs with a duty of fifty per cent. What he complained of was, that there should be such a want of friendly intercourse between the two countries. He had promised himself that the effect of the union to Ireland would have been that huts would be changed for comfortable habitations; that its commerce would increase; that the agents of sedition would in vain endeavour to alienate the people; that it would impart such strength to the two countries, as one entire empire, that France would be obliged to give up the contest, and that we should not longer struggle in arms, but in arts. The measure, however,

had his support; though far from being carried into effect on the system he wished to have seen it.

As Mr. Peel was supposed to express the sentiments of the manufacturing districts, his speech had considerable influence, not only in England, but in Ireland, where it was diligently circulated in the shape of a pamphlet. There is little of novelty in his view of the case; he had not risen above the prejudices of commercial jealousy, which then flourished more luxuriantly in Manchester than in any other part of the empire; but it must be confessed that he advocated a more liberal system of commercial policy than most of those who took a part in the debate. A political union, co-existent with a system of commercial separation was a palpable absurdity; every impediment to a free interchange of commodities between the two countries tended to keep them separate and distinct. If Mr. Pitt had boldly and at once abolished all commercial and religious distinctions, Ireland would long since have lost all traces of a separate nationality.

Sir Robert Peel was created a baronet by patent, dated November 29th, 1800. His authority was sought by the Addington ministry, in support of their measure for continuing the bank restriction, and he gave his opinion in favour of a paper currency frankly and forcibly. In the debate on the 9th of April, 1802, he said that it was not merely the state of our foreign relations which justified the withholding of cash payment by the bank, there were other circumstances which powerfully proved the necessity of it. The course of exchange was against us all over Europe. Since the commencement of the war, the trade of the country had increased threefold, and no resource of art or nature could equalize our bullion with it. The wealth of the nation he might estimate at three hundred millions, and there was no probability, as indeed there was no necessity, for having a cash currency to an equal amount; besides the impossibility, there would also be the incon