ed for little, that they
undersold the English-bred cattle, and consequently "the breed of Cattle
in the Kingdom was totally given over," and rents fell. Other members
contended in their places "that their countries had no land bad enough
to breed, and that their traffic consisted in buying lean cattle and
making them fat, and upon this they paid their rent." Nobody, except the
king, gave a thought to Ireland. He, in this not unworthy of his great
Tudor predecessor, Henry the Eighth, declared he was King of Ireland no
less than of England, and would do nothing to injure one portion of his
dominions for the benefit of another. But as usual he gave way, being in
great straits for money. The House of Lords was better disposed towards
Ireland than the House of Commons, but they too yielded to selfish
clamour, and the Bill, which had excited great fury, became law, and
proved ineffective, owing (as was alleged) to that corruption which
restrictions on trade seem to have the trick of breeding.[123:1]

It is always agreeable to be reminded that however large a part of our
history is composed of the record of passion, greed, delusion, and
stupidity, yet common-sense, the love of order and of justice (in
matters of business), have usually been the predominant factors in our
national life, despite priest, merchant, and party.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by two measures to which Marvell
refers as Bills "for the prevention of lawsuits between landlord and
tenant" and for "the Rebuilding of London." Both these Bills became law
in February 1668, within five months of the great catastrophe that was
their occasion. Two more sensible, well-planned, well-drawn, courageous
measures were never piloted through both Houses. King, Lords and
Commons, all put their heads together to face a great emergency and to
provide an immediate remedy.

The Bill to prevent lawsuits is best appreciated if we read its
preamble:--

"Whereas the greatest part of the houses in the City of London having
been burnt by the dreadful and dismal fire which happened in
September last, many of the Tenants, under-tenants, and late
occupiers are liable unto suits and actions to compel them to repair
and to rebuild the same, and to pay their rents as if the same had
not been burnt, and are not relievable therefor in any ordinary
course of law; and great differences are likely to arise concerning
the Repairs and rebuilding the said