Show V y y laws against extravagance alien people spend anat aliey like sk anay surprise many people to be told that not ao very long ago in the history of the the of alic various coundrie coun trie were so crate and 0 o for the welfare of their subjects that they actually enado laws regulating to n certain extent their expenditure and nought to re trl tn extravagance in food arcs oc even in funerals many of theao laws mere no dokht ly nn earnest besiie to further the interest of the inan idill but allf were alic outcome of in author aty mahi ng to prevent their alijo were quite wealthy enough 0 o do BO from closely or even sur aning them in the matter of dross or the like tho ladica often received the moot careful consideration from the law makere for instance on tha occasion of the beconi punic war about B cc home which frequently paid ecat attention to such macj r decided that no woman should wear a arc of various color nor ride jn a carriage in tho city pr within a mile of it unless it happened to be at public sacrifice aa a matter of course such a measure wair very unpopular with the fair BOX and in or twenty years fir so they it to do ihli however thiry sn the art acta lind fun the fona lorit haut arid cuu iho ind it io bo o long annuch an such law was in force naturally enough the ladies have been rather difficult io man ka in such matters and it ii on mccorl that when in english women were of excess use instead of complying and rc during thosa on anthey they actually biado Iio iii tho first of theao as thoy were billed cil led IQ ar ah our omi country waa nce nied eliat of ward air d in 30 ut did not ilian a knight in iclal juiia ivas directed against tires and waa a large of people fl manner lat beyond their means bici cd we arc lold ment and 9 alm by it kin slits under tho of knight of bertain ideation clrk cuzens burgesses ten anta yeo men ploughman ploughmen plough men and of lc degree together with their rivca and children were only allowed to tear loth tig of tha and and the or cl othera wats directed io inako ft guantt ty of gar manta BO that there would ve no for tha tnt tilo vw not n nr aff siaion ii thir i alio penalty ltv was the forfeiture to the king of all apparel not complying with the eions this law apparently was not a popular one for it was partly repealed in tho following year it was during the reign of the next edward eliat tho extravagance 6 f the male portion of alio community reached a most ridiculous height while some of tho dress worn was of a truly absurd description and consequently lava made to put stop to sudi n state vt affairs in this caso everybody belov chri rank of lord was affected and the form and value were specified while tailors and guilty of supplying these prohibited articles to people not qualified to ear them were clatie to very heavy it was about time that lue shoes worn had vc ry long points sometimes as a tact feet in length so we cannot wonder that the legislators thought it kiino to step in and shorten them the quality of material 0 o be used jn making tho articles of apparel was regulated by tho enactment passed in alio reign of henry as much as sixteen yards being allowed to a duke six yards to a knight and considerably less to servants and others so the peo plo were not permitted to spend their money at will at that period henry VIII was also strict wilh rc gard to alio expenditure of hn subjects and even directed who should bo allowed lo 10 buy foreign made hats and caps and what price they should pay for the hanla lie also regulated the apparel of the royal family aa well ai that of his poorer subjects and the latter were strictly forbidden to wear a silver button or any kind of ornament then n 1554 an act directed that whoever shall wear silk in or upon his hat bonnet girdle scabbard hose shoes or spur shall months imprisoned and forfeit 10 except mayors aldermen etc ilc if any servant offended in direction and was hot dismissed within fourteen days tho employer had to forfeit it it fo assume that silk drossel were what scarce during that reign these jaws regulating the expenditure on dress were all repealed in ahe reign of james I 1 and apparently such restriction have not been deemed necessary frince for no further attempts have been made to deal with matter |