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.