SEVERE AND UNJUST LAWS 153 



bishops, five ; and viscounts and barons with 

 incomes of not less than 1000 marks, five. 



In the same way subjects with an income 

 of 500 marks were each to maintain two of 

 these trotting horses for the saddle, while men 

 with an income of 100 marks, whose wives 

 should "wear any gown of silk, or any French 

 hood or bonnet of velvet, with any habiliment, 

 paste or egg of gold, pearl or stone, or any 

 chain of gold about their necks, or in their 

 partlets, or in any apparel on their body," were 

 by the law compelled to maintain one saddle 

 horse, severe penalties being inflicted if they 

 failed to do so. 



I have somewhere seen it stated that these Acts 

 were repealed by Edward VI., but they were not. 

 They were developed by William and Mary, and 

 further developed by Elizabeth. Upon each occa- 

 sion the renewal and development of these statutes 

 caused bad blood and brought forth threats of 

 retaliation, but the latter were not carried out. 



That the obvious injustice of laws so arbitrary 

 should have created friction, is not to be wondered 

 at ; yet the benefit that subsequently accrued to 

 the country through passing them was enor- 

 mous. 



Indeed it is more than likely that if Henry VIII., 

 William and Mary, and Elizabeth had given way 

 to the demands of a great body of their subjects 

 between three and four hundred years ago, Eng- 



