which, it was imagined, tended to impoverish the nation, and draw after it a train of evils*. During Elizabeth's reign, parliament did not allow this subject to escape its notice, but passed three laws against that supposed mischief, while several bills were rejected t. In conformity with the laws, the Queen issued proclamations, in which she threatened to exact the penalties; but, as none of the statutes entitled her to meddle with the ruffs, so there appears to be only one authority for the story about them, and that a questionable one-Howes, the continuator of Stow. According to that writer, the ruffs began to be worn exceedingly high, and foreigners ridiculed the fashion as barbarous: To prevent this imputation, as well as the offence to the eye, the Queen sent about grave citizens to measure that article of dress, and curb the licentious use of it t. If Howes be

3d Inst. ch. 95.

† D'Ewes, p. 134, 188, 594. tious, and therefore by 1 James 3 Inst. c. 95.

These laws had become very vexa-
I. ch. 25, they were all abrogated.

Howes mentions this in his Life and Raigne of James I. in his continuation of Stow's Annals, p. 869. After saying that the old English weapon was the sword with the buckler, he says that this continued not long; " for shortly after began long tucks and long rapiers, and he was held the greatest gallant that had the deepest ruffe and longest rapier. The offence to the eye of the one, and the hurt unto the life of the subject that came by the other, caused her majesty to make proclamation against them both, and to place selected grave citizens, at every gate, to cut the ruffes, and breake the rapier's point of all passengers that exceeded a yeard in length of their rapiers, and a nayle of a yard in depth of their ruffes." He says that the English called the ruffes the French fashion; but that the French disclaimed it, calling it the English monster. Now, in his Annals, Strype gives a particular account

correct, the acquiescence of the people may easily be accounted for, without even supposing that they connived at such a usurpation upon their privileges. When the royal proclamation had been issued, the common council applied to the throne for a mitigation of the laws; and, as this was granted, it is possible that Elizabeth might, at their request, consent to relax the rigour of the statutes, on condition of their restraining the offensive size of ruffs; and that those who were obnoxious to punishment

of the proclamations about the arms, which are grounded upon statutes; and, in his edition of Stow's Survey, which, considering the accuracy both of the original author and the editor, we must conceive to be correct, it is expressly said that the mayor, out of his sense of official duty, sent the citizens to different quarters of the city to inspect the swords. Many accidents and quarrels had happened. There is, however, no mention of ruffs either in the account of the proclamations about apparel given in the Annals, or in the Survey, while it is particularly mentioned in the last that the common council of London petitioned the Queen to relax the rigour of the statutes, as many informers were abroad vexing the people by prosecuting for the penalties, &c. Ib. Now it is inconceivable that such an omission should have occurred; and, with regard to another authority quoted by Mr. Hume, Townshend's Journals, it has not the most distant allusion to such a subject. Sir R. Cecil, in announcing the recalment of monopolies, thus addresses the house humorously, but in bad taste, "That you may eat your meat more savoury than you have done, every man shall have salt as good cheap as he can buy it or make it freely, without danger of that patent which shall be presently revoked. The same benefit shall they have which have cold stomachs, both for aquavitæ, aqua composita, and the like," &c. After proceeding in this way, he says "Those that desire to go sprucely in their ruffs, may with less charge than formerly accustomed obtain their wish; for starch, which hath been so much prosecuted, shall now be repealed." Townshend's Journ. p. 250. D'Ewes, p. 652, 653. Surely this does not support Mr. Hume's statement. Nay, it does the reverse; for if Elizabeth had really taken such offence at the size of the ruffs, the secretary would haye hinted that he hoped gentlemen would not wear them too high.

Stopping the course

by statute-law for excess of apparel, (such only would be likely to wear uncommon ruffs,) would be satisfied to suffer in that respect, when they found themselves relieved from the legal penalties in another. But, indeed, this is a point scarcely worth investigation; as it would not be any great proof of slavishness in the people that they were above contesting a trifle of this kind with a beloved monarch, whom they, with the rest of Europe, considered the bulwark of the protestant cause; and, unless it be supposed that the historian could have produced something more important to justify his general statement, few will be inclined to adopt his view of the government in that age.

Stopping the course of justice by particular of justice warrants, is reckoned by Mr. Hume amongst the by particu- abuses of those times, and one of the strongest

lar war

rants.

proofs of arbitrary power: He says also, that parliament, in the thirteenth of the Queen, praised her for not imitating this practice, which was usual amongst her predecessors; but he has scarcely done justice to his authority. In those days, the speaker of the Commons, when presented to the Sovereign for his or her approbation, used to make a fulsome oration upon the excellency of the present ruler high compliments passed on both sides, and abuses of former times were brought forward to form a contrast with the felicity of the present. In the course of his harangue, the speaker, on the occasion alluded to, in the 13th of Elizabeth," said something in commendation of her majesty, who had given free course to her laws, not sending or requiring the stay of justice as heretofore sometimes

hath been by her progenitors used. Neither hath she pardoned any, without the advice of such before whom the offenders have been arraigned, and the cause heard *." The historian says, that " the Queen, in refraining from the practice, was very laudable. But she was by no means constant in this reserve. There remain in the public records some warrants of hers for exempting particular persons from all law-suits and prosecutions; and these warrants, she says, she grants from her royal prerogative, which she will not allow to be disputed."

This abominable practice early attracted the attention of the legislature, and is expressly provided against, not only by Magna Charta, but by other statutes. Nor were the laws on this head considered a dead letter; as courts of justice had repeatedly adjudged the warrants to be void t. Mr. Hume has referred merely to the warrants themselves, which neither shew the circumstances out of which they emerged, nor the consequences with which they were attended; and he holds that, because the queen in common form declares, that she will not allow her command to be disputed, these warrants could not be impugned; but, had he consulted Coke's Institutes upon this point, he would have discovered that, not only in early reigns, but in those of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. and even of Elizabeth herself, these warrants had been resolved by the

D'Ewes, p. 141. See those orations generally as to the strain of them, as well as addresses to the speaker.

+ 2d Inst. p. 56.

See also Stat. 5 E. II. c. 32. 2 Ed. III. c. 8. 14 E. III. St. 1. c. 14. 11 Rich. II. c. 10.

Monopolies.

judges to be against law, and the sheriffs had been amerced for not executing the writs. Nay, it is very singular, that one of the three warrants referred to by Mr. Hume, is also specially referred to by Sir Ed. Coke, as having been adjudged void *.

The great grievance of Elizabeth's reign was monopolies. When an individual, by applying talent, time, and industry, to any particular object, has made a discovery, there seems to be no way so well calculated to remunerate him without injury to the community, as to grant him the exclusive right to the benefit of the invention for a certain term of years. This principle was early understood; but Elizabeth, availing herself of it, granted exclusive patents for ordinary manufactures, either as gifts to her courtiers, or as a mean of procuring money for the crown; and the whole nation sensibly felt the effects of such a system, which was not only against the fundamental laws of the realm, but had been often adjudged to be so, even in parliament, as well as in the ordinary courts of justice t. In the course of Elizabeth's time, the evil swelled to that magnitude, that the people at large bitterly cried out against it, and though parliament adopted language on the occasion little consonant to the public spirit of that assembly in the former parts of the same reign, the ministers of the Crown, with the Queen herself,

* Mr. Hume has referred to three different places of the 15th vol. of Rymer's Fœd. for such warrants by Elizabeth, and the second is p. 708. Now, the warrant is in favour of Hitchcocke, and this is cited by Coke as having been condemned. 2d Inst. p. 56.

+ 3 Inst. ch. 85. A new statute against them was passed in the next reign, 21 J. I. c. 3. when the evil had got very high. The sta tute bears to be a recognition of ancient laws.