from America into Ireland; I say, in that year the Customs upon exported and imported Commodities, between Ireland and England, was but but not 1⁄6 thereof, which since, how easily may it be added to the other Charges upon England and Ireland, which are together perhaps 1500 M. per Ann.?
2. If it be for the good of England to keep Ireland a distinct Kingdom, why do not the predominant Party in Parliament (suppose the Western Members) make England beyond Trent another Kingdom, under[1] Commerce, and take Tolls and Customs upon the new Borders? Or why was there |35| ever a Union between England and Wales, the good effects and fruits whereof were never questioned? And why
- ↑ S, 'hinder.'
Commons prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle entirely. On the 20th it was advanced to a second reading and a public hearing before a committee was set for the 21st. Petty appeared with others against the measure, but they were refused a copy of the bill or even a list of its chief heads. They might hear it read once and immediately speak against it. The protesters declined to speak unprepared in a matter of such moment and prayed for delay that the Lord Lieutenant might be consulted. Delay was refused and the bill was ordered to be engrossed on the twenty-third. H. C. Jour., viii. 617, 619, 620. Before the Lord's committee Petty appeared two or three times in opposition to the measure and sufficient delay was there secured to prevent its passage before the prorogation of Parliament, 31 October, 1665. Lord E. Fitzmaurice, who had MS. memoranda, says that the substance of Petty's argument is reproduced in ch. x. of the Polit. Anat. (p. 185 post). Life, 142. It seems possible that some part of his argument was also printed at the time, as Thomas Thorpe had, in 1842, a printed sheet of Observations on the Irish Cattle Trade, which he attributed to Petty. Thorpe's Catalogue, 1842, no. 5597. The 27 November, 1667, a petition from Chester was presented in the House of Commons alleging infractions of 15 Charles II., c. 7 and calling for a more stringent enactment. H. C. Jour., ix. 26—27. A bill was accordingly introduced 9 December and passed, after violent debate, the 2 March, 1668, declaring the importation from beyond seas of any great cattle, sheep or swine, or any beef, pork or bacon or of any ling, herring, cod, pilchard, salmon, eels or congers taken by foreigners aliens to the kingdom of England to be a nuisance. Such imports were therefore to be seized and sold for the benefit of the informer and of the poor of the parish. The debate in the House of Lords was even more violent then than in the Commons, and the bill was returned, 18 March, 1668, with amendments which were agreed to 30 March,—18 & 19 Charles II., c. 2. On the history of these measures see Parl. Hist., iv. 337—347, Clarendon's Life, p. 959 seq., Carte, Ormond, ii. 317—323, 329—338, Fitzmaurice, 140—142.
