The Industrial Revolution

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1027928145

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-159926

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Cunningham, William http://d-nb.info/gnd/128907487

Title:: The Industrial Revolution

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: The University Press

Year of publication:: 1922

Scope:: xxii S., S. 404-886

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

326 PARLIAMENTARY COLBERTISM :erms*; and as a result the forests of Ireland were absolutely ruined. There was a better prospect of obtaining an ample supply of material from the American plantations, where hoth iron ore and fuel were found in abundance, and in L717 the ironmongers and smiths of London and Bristol, who were dependent on imported material from Sweden, petitioned in favour of encouraging the smelting of iron in the American colonies?. The condition of the trade was fully discussed in an interesting report in 1737% when a Jommittee of the House of Commons reported in favour of discouraging this trade as prejudicial to iron smelting at home*, It was maintained, however, that there would be no injurious competition if the colonies were only permitted bo prepare pig and bar iron for manufacture in England and this line was taken by the Act of 1750°, which allowed the importation of bar-iron from the colonies, duty free, into London®, and of pig-iron into any port. At the same time, the use of slitting mills and tilt hammers in the plantations was prohibited; existing works in New England were shut down’, and Edmund Quincy failed to obtain permission to erect plant for the manufacture of steel in 1773". Theharge 231. The attempt to assist the English hardware trade, esses of by drawing on extraneous sources for the fuel required in A.D. 1689 —1776. or the dmerican olontes. L 2 Anne, ¢. 2 (Irish) ; Newenham, op. cit. 154-5. Y Commons Journals, xvirr. 691. The Birmingham nailmakers, who had con- venient access to the Midland smelting district, petitioned against encouraging ;he colonists to engage in this business, 4b. 733. though opinion seems to have seen divided, tb. 747. 8 Commons Journals, xx11. 109. 4 Ib. 157. 5 93G. I. c. 2. 3 The discussion broke out again in 1757, when the Bristol manufacturers desired to have access to the same supplies of bar-iron as were available for Londoners. Commons Journals, xxvir. 830. The whole discussion is instructive; the iron manufacturers desired to get bar-iron cheap from the colonies, but to secure the subsequent processes of the trade for the support of English hands. They were “men of middling fortunes,” but were numerous; the iron-masters, who owned the forges, were large capitalists, and they were opposed to the solonies competing in their trade; and the proprietors of woods objected to the intended development of mining and smelting in the plantations as likely to affect he value of woods in Eugland; they were joined by the tanners, who were ‘nterested in procuring the bark of the wood used for smelting. See The case of the Importation of Bar Iron from our own Colonies (1756), (Brit. Mus. 1029, c. 15]. Also the answer, entitled Reflections on the Importation of Bar Iron (1757), [Brit. lus. 8229, i. 1]. 1 Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, 683. UV ammonsg Journals. XXXIv. 93, 147.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: The Industrial Revolution

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation