1658. Received of Joseph Piers, for refusing to open his

doores to have his house searched on the Lord’s daie 0 10 0 In 1641, an amusing pamphlet was published on the subject of Sunday closing. Its title, frontispiece, and an extract from its contents are given on the opposite page. About this period was in vogue that curious old form of punishment which was known as the drunkard’s, or Newcastle, cloak. This garment was nothing more nor less than a beer barrel, worn in the manner shown in the accompanying illustration. Possibly the inventor of sandwich men derived his idea from this source. [Illustration] Locke, in his second letter on Toleration, informs us that the intolerance of the age with regard to Dissent was carried to such length that hardly any walk in life was free from obstacles thrown in the way of Dissenters pursuing it. Amongst other things he mentions that those who had licences to sell ale were compelled to receive the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. We are unable to find in contemporary records any confirmation of this alleged regulation. [Illustration: The Lamentable Complaints of Nick Froth the Tapſter, and Ruleroſt the Cooke, concerning the reſtraint lately ſet forth, againſt drinking, potting, and piping on the Sabbath day and againſt ſelling meat. _Cook._—“There is ſuch news in the world will anger thee to heare of, it is as bad, as bad may be.” _Froth._—“Is there ſo? I pray thee what is it, tell me whatever it be.” _Cook._—“Have you not heard of the reſtraint lately come out againſt us, from the higher powers; whereby we are commanded not to ſell meat nor draw drink upon Sundays, as will anſwer the contrary at our perils.” * * * * * _Froth._—“I much wonder, Maſter Ruleroſt, why my trade ſhould be put downe, it being ſo neceſſary in a Commonwealth.” ] Efforts were made by the brewers from time to time to bring about an alteration in the law restricting the quality of beer to two sorts, the strong and the small. _The Brewers’ Plea or a Vindication of Strong Beer_, London, 1647, thus gives the views of the brewers on the advantages to be obtained by allowing stronger beer to be brewed:—“For of hops and malt, our native commodities (and therefore the more agreeable to the constitutions of our native inhabitants), may be made such strong beer (being well boiled and hopped, and kept its full time) as that {118} it may serve instead of Sack, if authority shall think fit, whereby they may also know experimentally the virtue of those creatures, at their full height; which beer being well brewed, of a low, pure amber colour, clear and sparkling, noblemen and the gentry may be pleased to have English Sack in their wine cellars, and taverns also to sell to those who are not willing, or cannot conveniently lay it in their own houses; which may be a means greatly to increase and improve the tillage of England, and also the profitable plantations of hop grounds . . . and produce at lesser rates (than wines imported) such good strong beer as shall be most cherishing to poor labouring people, without which they cannot well subsist; their food being for the most part of such things as afford little or bad nourishment, nay, sometimes dangerous; and would infect them with many sicknesses and diseases, were they not preserved (as with an antidote) with good beer, whose virtues and effectual operations, by help of the hop well boiled in it, are more powerful to expel poisonous infections than is yet publicly known, or taken notice of.” Another ineffectual plea, somewhat later in date, may be here mentioned. In _The grand concern of England explained in several proposals to the consideration of the Parliament_, London, 1673, petition is made to Parliament that legislation of a protective nature may be granted to the brewers’ trade. The proposal is “That Brandy, Coffee, Mum, Tea, and Chocolate may be prohibited,” for these greatly hinder the consumption of Barley, Malt, and Wheat, the product of our land. “But the prohibition of Brandy would be otherwise advantageous to the Kingdom, and prevent the destruction of his majesty’s subjects; many of whom have been killed by drinking thereof, it not agreeing with their constitutions. “Before brandy (which is now become common and sold in every little alehouse) came over into England in such quantities as it now doth, we drank good strong beer and ale; and all laborious people (which are far the greatest part of the Kingdom), their bodies requiring, after hard labour, some strong drink to refresh them, did therefore every morning and evening use to drink a pot of ale, or a flagon of strong beer; which greatly promoted the consumption of our own grain, and did them no great prejudice; it hindered not their work, neither did it take away their senses, nor cost them much money.” This petition, like the last, seems to have been of no effect, for we find these “destructive” drinks, brandy, coffee, tea, and chocolate, still in use in this country, and not yet prohibited by law. {119} Arriving now at a period where the ancient gives way to the comparatively modern, this chapter necessarily ends. In the laws of the present day relating to ale and beer, are curiosities by the score; but we should hardly earn the thanks of our readers for devoting half this book to matters which are common knowledge. Suffice it to quote a verse from the lays of the Brasenose College butler, written, doubtless, at a time when it was first proposed to repeal the old beer tax, and which tells in simple words the probable result:— Yet beer, they tell us, now will be Much cheaper than before; Still, if they take the duty off, _In duty_ we drink more. [Illustration] {120} [Illustration]