838 llxtracts from the Records of the 



than her brother^s : he rewarded those who convicted^ she fined those 

 who convicted not. By the "Act against the deceitful stretching 

 and tentering of northern cloth/^ any justice negligent concerning 

 the due execution of the statute was liable to a penalty of £5. 



Two other Acts of the same reign were those in which Wiltshire- 

 men were chiefly concerned. The red and white cloths manufactured 

 in the shires of Wilts, Gloucester, and Somerset, had already, in 

 Edward's reign, been the subject of special enactment. Of these 

 materials the pieces wei*e to measure, while wet, in length between 

 twenty-six and twenty-eight yards, and in breadth not less than 

 seven quarters of a yard between the lists. The prescribed weight 

 of such pieces being, of white cloths, sixty-four pounds ; of coloured 

 pieces, sixty pounds. 



These quantities were reduced by Elizabeth. The length remained 

 at twenty-eight yards, but the width was drawn in to six-quai'ters- 

 and-a-half, 'and the weight, for "broads," to sixty-three pounds, 

 while " narrows " were to stand at sixty-one pounds ; and the 

 penalties for transgression of these conditions were re-settled. 



Such were the laws which the magistrates of the day found to 

 their hand; but their experience seems to have been, that, eschewing 

 all other colours, the Wiltshire manufacturer satisfied himself with 

 the steady production of his white cloth, broad or narrow listed 

 as the case might be. These at all events were the only colours 

 which found their way " into court," and it was not until the passing 

 of the latest Act of Elizabeth, passed after the century had turned, 

 that the overseers seem to have initiated any systematic prosecutions 

 under its clauses. 



At the Trinity Sessions in 1602 a score of offenders are presented 

 —some of them on a handful of separate charges. Fourteen of 

 these cases came on for trial at the next sessions : the accused in 

 every instance pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to the payment 

 of fines or the forfeiture of the defective cloth. Four shillings per 

 pound on the deficiency in weight was the measure of the fine where 

 such deficiency constituted the offence ; and forfeiture of the cloth 

 ensued where illegality of measure was the ground of complaint — 

 the forfeiture being commuted for a money payment of the value of 



