The Savannah morning news., 1903-02-15
LAWS AGAINST ExTRAVAGANCE.
The Time When Expenditures Were
Limited.
From Tit Bits.

From Tit Bits.
1t may surprise many people to be
told, that not so long ago in the history
of the world the governments of
the various countries We're so con-
siderate and so anxious for the well
fare of their subjects that they actually
made laws regulating, to a certain eX-
tent, their eXpediture, and thus sought
to restrain extravaganza, whether
in food, dress, amusements or even in
funerals. Many of these laws We're,
no doubt, prompted by an earnest de-
sire to further the interests of the
individual, but others were the out
come of those in authority wishing to
prevent their interiors, who were quite
wealthy enough to do so, from close
ly initiating, or even surprising, them
in the matter of dress or the like.
OF course, the ladies often received
the most careful consideration from the
law makers. For instance, on the occa-
sion of the second Punic War, about
215 B. c., Rome, which frequently paid
great attention to such matters, decid-
ed that no woman should wear a
dress of various colors nor ride in a
carriage in the city or within a mile of
it, unless it happened to be at pub
lie sacrifice. AS a matter of course,
such a measure was very unpopular
with the fair sex, and in the space of
twenty years or so they succeeded in
getting it repealed. To do this, however,
they assemble in the streets and sur
rounded the Senator'S house and even
the senator, and refused to be appeased
so long as such a law was in force.
Naturally enough, the ladies have been
fn ~,
matters, and it is on record that when
in 1872, English women were forbidden
to wear farthingales of excessive size,
instead of complying and reducing
those they wore, they actually made
them bigger!
The first of these "sumptuary laws "
as they were called, so far as England
was concerned, was that of Edward
III, passed in 1868; but this did not
affect any one higher than a knight
in the social scale. This was directed
against dress, and was passed because
a large number of people dressed in a
manner far beyond their means, which
resulted, we are told, in 1.-The impover-
ishment and destruction of the realm.
By it knights, gentlemen under the
estate of knights, esquires of certain
qualifications, merchants, clerks, citi-
Zens, burgesses, servants, handicraft-
men, yeomen, ploughmen and others
of less degree. together with their
wives and children, were only allowed
to wear clothes, of the kinds and pric-
es enumerated, and the tailors or clo-
THEIRS were directed to make q suf-
ficient quantity of such garments, so
that there would be no excuse for in
ringing the statute. Certain indi-
viduals were not allowed to wear any
silk or jewelry, nor were they allowed
to embroider their clothes with silver
while the penalty for violating the
law was the forfeiture to the King of
all apparel not complying with the
regulations. This law apparently was
not a popular one, for it was partly
repealed in the following year.
1t was during the reign of the next
Edward that the extravaganza of the
male portion of the community reach
ed most ridiculous height, while some
of the dress worn was of a truly alb
surd description, and consequently
laws were made to put a stop to such
a state of affairs. In this case every
body below the rank of lord was af-
fected, and the form and value were
specified, while tailors and shoennakers
guilty of supplying these prohibited
articles to people not qualified to wear
them were liable to very heavy penal
Ties. 1t was ABOUT JnlS time that the
shoes worn had very long points. some
times as much as two feet in length,
so we cannot wonder that the legis-
iGtors thought 1t time to step in and
shorten them.
The quantity of the material to
be used in making the various articles
Of apparel was regulated by an en-
actment passed in the reign of Henry
VIII, as much as sixteen yards
being allowed to a duke, six yards to
a knight, and considerably less to SER