(1535) Another statute against sturdy vagabonds and “rufflers found idling after being assigned to labor,” and already having their ears so slit, are punishable with death.  This year Wales was joined to England; and we see the first act for the suppression of monasteries; the next year came the statute extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome.  With the struggle against the Roman Church went the contest for freedom; inter arma silent leges; sociological legislation came to an end for the rest of the reign and arbitrary laws passed at the king’s desire; in 1536, the act authorizing kings of England, on arriving at the age of twenty-four, to repeal any act of Parliament made during their minority, and in 1539 the “Act that Proclamations made by the King shall be obeyed”—­the high-water mark of executive usurpation in modern times.  Proclamations made by the king and council were to have the force of acts of Parliament, yet not to prejudice estates, offices, liberties, goods or lives, or repeal existing laws; the cardinal constitutional rights were thus preserved, even as against this royal aggression.

(1548) Under Edward VI and Elisabeth we may expect more enlightened legislation, and are not disappointed.  Indeed, no one can read the statutes of the great queen without seeing that modern times here begin.  Nevertheless, while trade is becoming free, labor is no less severely, if more intelligently, regulated.  We first note a short but important statute touching victuallers and handicraftsmen, worth quoting in part:  “Forasmuche as of late dayes divers sellers of vittayles, not contented withe moderate and reasonable gayne ... have conspyred and covenanted together to sell their vittels at unreasonable price; and lykewise Artyficers handycrafte men and laborers have made confederacyes and promyses and have sworne mutuall othes, not onlye that they shoulde not meddle one withe an others worke, and performe and fynishe that an other hathe begone, but also to constitute and appoynt howe muche worke they shoulde doe in a daye and what bowers and tymes they shall work, contrarie to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme” (It is extraordinary how closely this old statute sets forth some practices of the modern trades-union.) “Everie person so conspiring covenantinge swearing or offendinge ... shall forfeyt for the firste offence tenne pounds ... or twentie dayes ymprisonment” with bread and water; for the second offence, twenty pounds or the pillory, and for the third offence forty pounds, or the pillory and lose one of his ears.  After that he is to be taken as a man infamous and his oath not to be credited at any time, and if there be a corporation of dealers in victuals or of handicraftsmen so conspiring, it shall be dissolved—­the origin and precedent of the Sherman Act!  This, of course, is the statute which Herbert Spencer cites as making a “third conviction for joining a trades-union punished with loss of an ear”; but he places