lOO ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTES OF LABOURERS 



three successive years/ in the manner that had become cus- 

 tomary since 1334.^ The writs appointing the three sets 

 of collectors are identical in form with those of preceding 

 years, ^ but shortly after the issue in the summer of 1349 

 of the writs for the second year, important supplementary 

 instructions are given to the collectors. The ordinance of 

 labourers framed by the king's council had been proclaimed 

 in June ; in November, as a result of complaints from mem- 

 bers of the community * that the excessive wages extorted 

 from them by labourers, contrary to the ordinance, pre- 

 vented them from paying their share of the subsidy, letters 

 patent were issued to all the collectors ^ directing them to 

 assess upon labourers the sums received by them in excess 

 of the legal wages or prices, and to levy the same in aid 

 of the subsidy ; " the collectors and their deputies, also 

 bailiffs and constables, (there is no mention of justices) are 

 empowered to imprison obstinate offenders until they re- 

 fund the " excess " and give security for good behaviour. 

 The collectors, when necessary, are to obtain evidence by 



^ Rot. Pari., ii, 2jo 201; first year, Mich.. 1348, and Easter, 1349, 

 previous to the ordinance; second year, Mich., 1349, and Easter, 1350, 

 subsequent to the ordinance; third year, Mich., 1350, and Easter, 1351. 

 the last collection being subsequent to the statute. 



'Dowell, Hist, of Taxation, i, 97; by this time a fixed sum appor- 

 tioned definitely throughout the country. 



^Orig., 22, m. 53, Anglia; 23, ms. 52-54, 16 July; 24, m. 22, 20 July. 



*" Ex populari conquestione;" doubtless expressed through petitions 

 to king and council. 



^App., 258 261. The Cat. of Letter-Book F, 199-200, contains the 

 enrollment of the writ for London, " Q lod operarii capiant stipendia ut 

 solebant et non ultra," and also of a writ to the sheriffs ordering the 

 proclamation of the ordinance of June. 



^ Cf. p. 82 for an analysis of the difference between the penalty here 

 ordained and that of the more famous ordinance; Harrington, Observa- 

 tions upon the Sfafiiies, 207, considers that this " improper " distribu- 

 tion of the penalties possibly caused the neglect of the measure. 



