The king, out of respect to the surety, peace, and restfulness of all his subjects, forbad the wearing any bills, bows, and arrows, swords, long nor short bucklers, nor any other harness nor weapons invasive, in any town or city, but at such times as men journey or ride, upon pain of forfeiture of the weapons and imprisonment. No man, of whatever rank, was to make any affray or quarrel with any other person. After this proclamation country corporations began to stir to carry out the wishes of the king. At Leicester, in this reign (Henry VII.), making an affray was viewed as a serious matter. Should blood have been shed, the fine was 6s. 8d.; without blood, 3s. 4d. No one was to leave his house after the nine o'clock bell had rung, except officers and the watch, or forfeit 12d.; 2s. for the second offence, and for the third offence to suffer imprisonment. The Mayor of Leicester, Richard Gyllott, made an order in 1467, that no one in town should bear any weapon except in support of the mayor in case of an affray, so that the mayor had in such an event to arm and lead in person against the rioters; a knight or an esquire might have a sword borne after him. Every countryman was to leave his weapon at his inn, before going about his business in fair or market, and every innkeeper was bidden, at Leicester and in other boroughs, to give warning to his customers to do If they wore their weapon it was to be forfeited, and the offender's body was to lie in prison as long as the mayor liked. No townsman was to lend a countryman any weapon, except it was to be used in support of the mayor.* So. At Marlborough there was a bye-law made for the special subject: "XXV. Every inhabitant shall have in readiness in his shop or other place where he has ready access, a club, bill, or other necessary weapon, that he or his servants may be in readiness to assist the authorities in suppressing any outcry or breach of the peace." † * Gutch's Coll. Curioso.-Nicholl's Hist of Leicester. COSTUME. FIGHTS IN THE CHURCH. 411 Rabelais gives a minute description of the dresses of this period, and satirises the custom now first introduced of going about armed; every one, he tells us, carrying "la belle épée au coté, la poignée dorée, le fourreau de velours de la couleur des chausses, le bont d'or et d'orfévrerie, le poignard de même.” * Mankind do not usually burden themselves with that which they do not intend to use. The wearing of arms was no exception. Well might citizens be bidden to provide themselves with weapons to put down a fray, for such was what many gloried in, particularly in public places. When publicity was the object, no place could be so suitable for a fight as the interior of a church, or a churchyard, when parishioners were assembled at the church hatch, or else in city, or at market. The proclamation of 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, 27 March, 1557, complains how certain quarrelsome persons, both naughty and insolent, provided themselves with swords and rapiers of a much greater length than had been accustomed to be used, and wore gauntlets and vambraces as well as bucklers, with long pikes in them, to be ready for a quarrel, riot, or fray, which they sought, as before said, at church, in the churchyard, &c. Churches were not then covered with pews, and afforded an open space for a fight, or a theatrical performance. There many deaths and wounds had been dealt. These long rapiers, exceeding a yard and half a quarter at the blade, were to be broken; for they appear to have been worn for duelling. A dagger was not to exceed twelve inches at the blade. In 1616 James I. prohibited, by proclamation, the wearing of steelets, or pocket daggers-dagges, or pocket pistols, which were used in duelling.t The being restrained in the use of offensive weapons *Handbook to Renaissance Court. by J. Waring. † Nicholl's Leicester, temp. Elizabeth. Court of the Crystal Palace was deemed an indignity by the proud and quarrelsome swash-bucklers of that day. They were not all willing to submit to such a degradation. So late as Oct. 1854, a jury of freemen at Lyme Regis appeared to consider the conduct of a brother freeman. It was solemnly given to them "in charge to inquire if Nicholas Hassard hath made a breach of his liberty for his disobedience, for he being commanded by the mayor to lay down his weapons, and not to wear them in the street, he hath denyed to lay them down." "Also he thrust or shouldered Mr. Mayor yesterday night, as Mr. Mayor came by the walke," the space under the old custom house, opposite the Assembly Rooms. Nicholas Hassard forfeited his freedom.* The individual so punished belonged doubtless to a class who viewed novelties with an evil eye, and who feared that degeneracy could result from some recent introductions. The Swiss were enjoined, about the year 1627, not to neglect to gird on the sword when they went to church, nor to effeminate themselves by the use of tea and coffee.† Local history abounds with episodes of the evils of men wearing arms. An instance is adduced from Lyme. The year 1592 was rendered memorable by a melancholy occurrence in the open street. Nicholas Ellesdon, one of the serjeants, arrested a merchant residing at Dowlands, named John Seward, at the suit of one Belpit, of Weymouth, which Seward, in his anger, killed the officer, who was only discharging his duty, and who fell a victim to the practice of wearing arms. In the Hustings' Book for the year the affair appears at length, and it is stated, "the which odious act, by all presumption, happened the rather through the want of clubs in the town; for the having of clubs might be an occasion to restrain such lewd attempts by terrifying such blood-thirsty persons." Clubs not less than seven feet in length were ordered to be pro * See the Freemen's Book, p. 290. † Historical Pictures of the Middle Ages in Black and White, by Mrs. R. Moore. SWORDSMEN. ORGIES OF THE MOHOCKS. 413 vided, and in skilful hands proved no doubt, as quarter staves, very efficient weapons. A dexterous practiser of the quarter-staff would bid defiance to any man. A western gentleman, with this weapon, fought at Xeres, in Spain, against three rapiers and poniards. Judge Anderson, a well-known character, pronounced that the killing the serjeant in the street was not murder, but manslaughter; because he had not procured a warrant from the mayor. No pages or lacqueys were to wear swords, as by a proclamation in the year 1661. The wearing of arms was in general use at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Dissoluteness and the sword had fierceness lent to them by drink. The sword clubs were suppressed by a royal proclamation in 1724. For full particulars of the bravos of the reign of George I., and how Beau Nash exerted himself at Bath, see the Gent's Mag. for Sept. 1852, for an article by Dr. Doran. Persons in the United States of America going to coloured balls are required to leave their weapons below. Upon a row happening parties hand them up, if called upon to do so. The Mohocks, about 1720, when they sallied out upon their nightly orgies, wore their weapons, as we learn that one branch of that fraternity -the "Dancing-Masters" made persons dance about, by running the points of their swords into their legs. Whole parties of these men, very drunk, would rush forward in the streets of London with their swords drawn, which they used against the unoffending. Haydn, the composer, played at concerts with a tie wig on, and wearing a sword by his side. He died so late as 1809. Sumptuary Laws of Dress and Expenditure. IN very ancient times men were compelled by law to regulate their expenditure in various ways, and particularly their dress, according to their rank and their means. The officer who took account of such matters at Rome, that is, the Censor, held the sumptuary rate-book, the Census; and he judged by that roll what display in living or in dress was allowable to each individual. The several classes of the community were distinct from one another; and each had distinct privileges in the eye of the State. In order to keep separate the several orders of men or classes, rules were prescribed for each, to regulate their expenditure, their dress, the number of funeral piles that might be lighted, and for various purposes. A part of these, when attentively considered, are found to have been social, a part sumptuary, strictly so called, and some political. When in modern times our soverigns and our local municipal bodies turned their attention to the regulating every action in daily life of their subjects and fellow townsmen, there was scarcely anything that did not become the subject matter of proclamations or municipal orders and precepts. Some of these openly assailed expensive habits, and regulated the value of the materials any one might wear in garments according to his income. Such were true sumptuary laws, and an imitation of those of the times of the Roman history. Other proclamations wear the semblance of having been dictated by the peculiar taste or fancy of the sovereign. Most profess to regard the welfare of the state and the subject. Now that every one is left to dress in whatever colour or in materials of whatever value the wearer may choose, and the vast population occasions no trouble or concern to any official, but finds ample check in ridicule against bad taste, and in distress against too prodigal a style of dress or living, it seems strange how so many laws about dress, &c. could have been required. It may be remarked that they were |