were grave and serious enough. The legislature was so confident of its ground that it recited that "wearing inordinate and excessive apparel was a displeasure to God, was an impoverishing of the realm and enriching other strange realms and countries, to the final destruction of the husbandry of this realm, and leading to robberies." 1 The real object was no doubt the encouragement of native industry, according to the then current notions of encouragement, and, probably, also to carry out a view which has always prevailed, that of keeping people in their proper places. None were to wear foreign cloth, and none under a certain income were to wear furs on their clothes on pain of forfeiture.2 The Statute of Diet and Apparel in 1363, and later statutes, minutely fixed the proper dress for all classes, according to their estate, and the price they were to pay; handicraftsmen were not to wear clothes valued above forty shillings, and their families not to wear silk, fur, or silk velvet; and so with gentlemen and esquires, merchants, knights, and clergy, according to gradations. Ploughmen were to wear a blanket and a linen girdle.3 No female

belonging to the family of a servant in husbandry was to wear a girdle garnished with silver. Every person beneath a lord was to wear a jacket reaching his knees, and none but a lord was to wear pikes to his shoes exceeding two inches.5 Nobody but a member of the royal family was to wear cloth of gold or purple silk, and none under a knight to wear velvet, damask, or satin, or foreign wool, or fur of sable. It is true, notwithstanding all these restrictions, that a licence of the king enabled the licensee to wear anything. For one whose income was under twenty pounds to wear silk in his nightcap was to incur three months' imprisonment, or a fine of ten pounds a day. And all above the age of six, except ladies and gentlemen, were bound to wear on the Sabbath day a cap of knitted wool.9

6

8

These statutes of apparel were not repealed till the reign of James I.10

this was the law in the City of London, as appears from records of 1351 and 1382.-Riley, Mem. Lond. 266, 458. 13 Ed. IV. c. 5 (1463); 1 Hen. VIII. c. 14. c. 2, 4. 3 37 Ed. III. 4 3 Ed. IV. c. 5. 22 Éd. IV. c. 1 (1482). 6 22 Ed. IV. c. 1. 7 1 6 Hen. VIII. c. 1. 8 1 & 2 Ph. & M. C. 2. 10 1 Jas. I.

2 11 Ed. III. 5 Ibid. (1463); Hen. VIII. c. 14; 9 13 Eliz. c. 19.

Compulsory change of dress.—Sometimes, though rarely, a legislature has gone the length of suddenly compelling an entire change of dress among a people, for reasons at the time thought urgent.1

Men wearing women's clothes.-There has also been some trouble occasioned in the law by attempts of one sex to wear the clothes usually worn by the other sex.2 Though it is not in our law an offence punishable, per se, in any way for one sex to wear the clothes usually worn by the other, yet it is often a material ingredient in the consideration, whether this act has not been the means used in order to commit some specific offence. And the circumstances, under which the wearing of clothes of the opposite sex occurs, supply the key to this inquiry. To wear such clothes at a masquerade, or theatre, or place of decorous entertainment, is not, in any sense, punishable, since the circumstances usually negative all but an innocent or harmless intent. But where a male puts on female attire, or a female puts on male attire, in order to obtain facilities for closer companionship, unless indeed very peculiar circumstances combine to negative ulterior objects, this will

1 In China a law was passed to compel the Tartars to wear Chinese clothes, and to compel the Chinese to cut their hair, with a view to unite the two races. And it was said there were many who preferred martyrdom to obedience.-7 Pink. Voy. 175.

So late as 1746 a statute was passed to punish with six months' imprisonment, and on a second offence with seven years' transportation, the Scottish Highlanders, men or boys, who wore their national costume or a tartan plaid, it being conceived to be closely associated with a rebellious disposition. After thirty-six years however the • statute was repealed. While the act was in force, it was evaded by people carrying the clothes in a bag over their shoulder. The prohibition was hateful to all, as impeding their agility in scaling the craggy steeps of their native fastnesses. In 1748 the punishment assigned by the act of 1746, 19 George II. c. 39, was changed into compulsory service in the army.-21 Geo. II. c. 34.

2 PLATO says it is one of the unwritten laws of nature, that a man shall not go naked into the market-place, or wear woman's clothes.Diog. Laert. b. iii. Plato. The Mosaic law forbade men to wear women's clothes, which was thought to be a mode of discountenancing the Assyrian rites of Venus.-Deut. xxii. 5. The early Christians following a passage of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.) and also one in Deut. xxii. 5, treated the practice of men and women wearing each other's clothes as confounding the order of nature, and as liable to the heavy censure of anathema.-Conc. Gangren. Can. 13, 17.

readily be seized upon as a suspicious symptom, and is easily convertible in the minds of a jury into evidence of an attempt to incite to the commission of some specific offence. And the courts hold, that an attempt or solicitation to commit an infamous crime is itself an indictable misdemeanour. And an attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanour is also a misdemeanour.1 And it has moreover been held, that such attempt is a misdemeanour, whether the principal offence is a misdemeanour at common law or created by statute.2

4

Painting the face. There was formerly a rigorous punishment of persons poaching game with blackened faces. Those who hunted in forests with their faces disguised were declared to be felons. And as disguises led to crime, and mummers often were pretenders, all who assumed disguise or visors as mummers, and attempted to enter houses or committed assaults in highways, were liable to be arrested and committed to prison for three months without bail. Even Bacon said he wondered there was no penal law against painting the face; 5 but he seemed still to believe in sumptuary laws. No occasion now remains for punishing the practice of blackening or painting the face, though in relation to the practices of night poachers and burglars it is no uncommon expedient in their precautions against detection. But though nothing now turns on this circumstance alone, yet it seldom fails to assist a jury in discovering from the accompanying facts the motives and intentions of those who resort to it.

Compulsory duty as to arms. However essential it may be in an organised and settled society to keep part of its subjects in a condition to be ready for war, and to maintain a standing army as the only effectual means of attaining that condition, the difficulty is great in defining,

1 R. v Higgins, 2 East, 21; R. v Phillips, 6 East, 464. Roderick, 7 C. & P. 795; R. v Butler, 6 C. & P. 368. VII. c. 8.

2 R. v

3 1 Hen.

4 3 Hen. VIII. c. 9. The Mosaic law prohibited the practice of using alhenna, or putting an indelible colour on the skin, as was done on occasions of mourning, or in remembrance of the dead, or in honour of some idol.-Levit. xix. 28. And two fashions of wearing the beard and hair were prohibited, as has been supposed, on account of idolatrous associations.-Lev. xix. 27.

5 De Augm. b. iv.

6 Bac. Ess. 15.

how far it shall be compulsory on any one of the citizens to take a share in this essential duty-who is to determine -by whom, and when, and on what terms the service is to be rendered-or on what conditions exemption may be procured, if service is allowed in any case to be avoided. Most of these considerations, and the best mode of overcoming them, are part of the duty of governinent, and are essentially interwoven with its main functions. With these it is at

present no part of our subject to deal. But it may for the moment be assumed, that some citizens must necessarily be found, willingly or unwillingly, to forsake all other business. and adhere to the temporary profession of soldiers. The main point at present is to state, how far compulsion is used to force any citizen into this profession against his will, for on this subject all legislatures and laws have differed from time to time. And there is also another question of kindred nature, namely, how far every individual is bound to have arms in his possession ready for emergencies, and on the other hand how far he is prohibited from possessing and carrying about such arms.

At

Compulsory keeping of armour.-Our ancient laws seem to have contemplated a necessity and duty in each citizen to be ready on an emergency to assist in war. Every man was bound to have certain armour in his house, such as swords, knives, bows and arrows, according to his estate; and a regular inquisition was made twice a year, to see that all had these essential guarantees for keeping the peace, and those who had them not were to be fined.1 the same time no man was held bound to go out of his shire, unless a strong enemy suddenly came.2 The legislature in the time of Henry VIII. recited that our ancestors "with the long bow did notable acts and discomfitures of war against the infidels and others, subdued regions, and operated to the terrible dread and fear of all strange nations." ." Accordingly all persons under sixty, except priests and judges, were bound to keep a long bow and arrows in their houses ready continually to exercise in shooting. Fathers and governors of children were bound to bring up those of a tender age in the knowledge of shooting. Every youth of seven to fourteen was to be pro1 13 Ed. I. St. Wint. c. 26. 2 1 Ed. III. st. 2, c. 5.

3 33 Hen. VIII. c. 9.

vided by his parent with a long bow. Each male servant of the same age was to be also provided, and the expense to be deducted from wages. Every town and city was to have a butt for shooting at. Justices of assize and of the peace were charged to inquire and fine those who disobeyed the statute.1 While the long bow was praised, the possession of the cross bow, being an implement used for deer killing, was prohibited, unless with the king's licence, or unless the owner was a lord.2 At length cross bows and hand-guns were allowed to be used by all persons having 1007. a year in lands; or living within seven miles of the sea or the Scottish border. And at a later period persons, having five pounds a year, were bound to keep a coat of mail, a halbert, a long bow, arrows, and steel cap.1

5

6

Right of wearing arms.—While the possession of arms was thus enjoined, it was a different thing whether each was to be allowed to carry arms about wherever he went. The wearing of arms was repeatedly forbidden by royal mandate in the time of Edward III., especially at night after curfew; and a penalty was imposed on those who went with them in London either by day or night. But in all countries where personal freedom is valued, however much each individual may rely on legal redress, the right of each to carry arms-and these the best and the sharpest —for his own protection in case of extremity, is a right of nature indelible and irrepressible, and the more it is sought to be repressed the more it will recur. If there is any danger in this right being clung to as a vital condition of personal security and self-defence, there are modes of taking the proper measures to wean subjects from the dangerous indulgence. In order to do so it is above all things necessary to create a confidence in the equality and impartiality and fitness of the laws and their administration; and this cannot be done with reasonable men, unless these have some voice in settling those laws and moulding them to the necessities of the time. As has been shown

2 19 Hen. VII. c. 4.

13 Hen. VIII. c. 3; 33 Hen. VIII. c. 9. 3 14 & 15 Hen. VIII. c. 7; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 17; 33 Hen. VIII. c. 6. 4 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 2. 5 Riley's Lib. Alb. Pref. 46.

6 Lib. Alb. b. iii. p. 3. In Venice it was said to have been once a capital offence to carry arms—a law, which Montesquieu says was contrary to nature.-Montesq. b. xxvi. c. 24.