taught the commons to ascribe the decrease of rents to another cause, the importation of Irish cattle. The annual value of the cattle sent to England, was far short of the deficiency discovered in the value of lands; and, before the troubles of England, far greater numbers had been imported without any complaints, or any decrease of rents: yet the English commons, in a violent, and most unaccountable rage of oppression, had no leisure to attend to such considerations. So early as the year 1663, they had passed a temporary act for prohibiting the importation of fat cattle from Ireland after the first day of July in every year. The inconveniences of this restraint to both countries, were represented in the strongest terms to the king. But in proportion as he seemed convinced of the impropriety of this measure, the commons were the more enflamed. In the parliament held at Oxford, in the year 1665, a bill was brought in for a perpetual prohibition of importing all cattle from Ireland, dead or alive, great or small, fat or lean.

"In vain did Sir Heneage Finch oppose the bill, by arguments drawn from natural justice; from the rights of Englishmen, to which the subjects of Ireland were entitled; from the misery to which it must reduce the whole kingdom of Ireland; from the mischiefs which must arise from forcing the Irish to trade with other countries. In vain was it urged, that the bill would destroy a trade highly advantageous to England, which, in return for provisions and rude materials,

sent back every species of manufacture; that the industrious inhabitants of England, when deprived of Irish provisions, must augment the price of labour, and thus render their manufactures too dear to be exported; while those of Ireland, finding the value of provisions reduced, would be the less inclined to labour, and in danger of falling into the ancient barbarism of the country; that they could not pay taxes, nor maintain the forces necessary for the for the security of government: all these, and other powerful arguments, were totally disregarded. Some gentlemen of Ireland appeared in behalf of their country, but were refused a copy of the bill. It passed the commons by a small majority. In the lords it was opposed, particularly by the earl of Castlehaven. Sir William Petty was heard before their committee, and pleaded the cause of a country, in which, by his abilities and diligence, he had acquired a considerable interest. The report was delayed, and the parliament prorogued.

"In the mean time, Ireland experienced the greatest distress; deprived of its usual trade with England, and disabled from any foreign commerce by the want of shipping, and the war with France and Holland."*

The malignity of the English towards the Irish, at this period, was so unbounded, that a bounty, sent from their Irish colonists, for the relief of those who suffered by the dreadful fire of London, was ill received and misinterpreted. Nay, it was so deep-rooted, even in the higher circles,

* Leland.

that the experience of the bad effects of the prohibition on the import of Irish cattle, could not soften or allay it. This infernal temper was violently exhibited, in the conduct of both houses of parliament, on introducing, debating, and passing, a still severer prohibitory act against cattle. The very wording of the bill was not a bare act of inhuman oppression, but coupled with national insult.

"The experience of three years had now proved the effects of restraining the importation of cattle from Ireland. The rents of England had not increased; Ireland was so reduced as to be unable to pay the subsidies granted by parliament. But Buckingham, Ashley, Lauderdale, and their party, had already vowed the destruction of the chancellor, and hated his friend Ormond, whose views and principles were so opposite to their own, and whose influence was a dangerous obstacle to that scheme of power which they meditated. Discontents were to be raised in Ireland; these might afford some pretence for removing their rival from his government; perhaps, some plausible ground for an impeachment. The passions of undiscerning men were easily en flamed. People were in general persuaded, that all their distress arose from the importation of Irish cattle; the northern and western members of the commons in particular, were transported to the utmost violence, and the bill of prohibition was eagerly resumed.

"The king had expressed his utter abhorrence of this bill, and passionately declared, that it

never should receive his consent. The commons, on whom he depended for the maintenance of his war, were the more determined to mortify him with a full conviction of their superiour power; by declaring in the preamble of the bill, that the importation of Irish cattle was a NUSANCE, they precluded him from attempting any dispensing power in favour of the Irish subjects. They passed the bill in a rage of obstinacy, without the least attention to argument or reason. In the lords it was amended, particularly by inserting the words "detriment and mischief," in the place of "nusance." When returned to the commons, their violence seemed to be suddenly allayed. Intelligence was received of an insurrection in Scotland; they began to discern some danger in exasperating Ireland; but the insurrection was quelled, and Ireland was again deemed insignificant. They insisted on their preamble; and, in a conference between the committees of both houses, neither seemed disposed to recede. Ashley, with an affected moderation, proposed, that instead of calling the importation a nusance, it might be declared to be felony, or a premunire. The chancellor suggested an amendment equally reasonable, and observed, that it might as properly be declared," adultery."

"Through the whole proceedings on this bill the lords carried on their debates with all the violence of men contending for their lives, with a shameful contempt of the order and dignity of their house. The duke of Buckingham, with all the plebeian meanness of national reflection,

exclaimed, "none could oppose the bill but such as had Irish estates, or Irish understandings.” This produced a challenge from lord Ossory, the admired and popular son of the duke of Ormond, which Buckingham declined to accept, chusing rather to complain to the house; and Ossory was sent to the Tower. The young earl was not dismayed. When Ashley inveighed against the Irish subscription, and all concerned in promoting it, Ossory observed, that "such virulence became none but one of Cromwell's counsellors." The partizans on each side caught the flame, and several lords seemed on the point of drawing the sword against each other. The commons apparently less enflamed, but inflexibly determined, refused to alter their preamble. Rather than resign their favourite expression, they resolved to give up the bill, and to introduce it without any amendments as a proviso to the bill of assessments. They even offered to the lords interested in Irish estates, that if they would consent to their preamble, a year's liberty should be given for the importation of cattle. The king was alarmed at this obstinacy, and the danger of losing his supplies. He directed his servants in the house of lords to consent to the word "nusance;" and thus decided the fate of this bill. In giving it the royal assent, he could not forbear expressing his resentment at the jealousy conceived against him.

The English nation soon felt the disadvantages of an act, which wantonly put an end to an advantageous commerce. Discerning men saw