The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1904-11-17
AFRAIDOF BIG CITIES
ENGLAND LONG TRIED TokEEP DOWN
LONDON's POPULATION

-
LONDON'S POPULATION
Laws Passed That Made 1T an Ofense
to Live In the Metropolis and Proc.
1amations Issued to Restrict the
Size and Number of Buildings.
From the days of Elizabeth to those
OF Charles II. the various English gov
ernments tried by every means within
their power to preserve the kingdom
from the 'evils" attendant upon
huge metropolis. The frequent out
breakings OF the -afterward
eliminating in the terrible visitation
which carried off over 10000 persons
the fear that with the deluge of build
ing the population would be poisoned
by breathing in one another's faces"
the incapacity Of the police of the time
to preserve order and their utter help
lessness in the face of mob low-these
were among the contributory causes
which brought about a long series of
Vexatlons and annoying prohibitions.
In 1880 a proclamation was issued
prohibiting the erection within three
miles of the city gates Of any new
houses or tenements upon sites where
no former house had been known to
have been erected. Later came another
proclamation, by which it was ordered
that only one family should live in
each house, that houses erected within
the past seven years and still inlet
should remain empty, and that all I'M
finished buildings on new foundations
should be pulled down.
There would appear to have been
neither order nor system in these vary
ing proclamations, which were issued
every six or seven years. Thus at one
time buildings were prohibited within
ten miles of London, at another las
quoted above within three miles, and,
while under Elizabeth unfinished
houses only were required to be pulled
down, orders were issued later under
which houses which had been erected
several years were ruthlessly demoI-
ished.
Further proclamations of the same
period commanded that persons Of
livelihood and means should reside in
in the city Of London, so that counties
remained unserved,'' but these seem to
have been of no effect until the reign
Of Charles l., when they were renewed
and definite steps taken to enforce
obedience. All persons of livelihood
and means ,1noonnootod with p,,I,I;o
Offices were ordered within forty days
from the date of the notice to resort to
their several counties and with their
families continue their residence there,
and they were further warned mot to
put themselves to unnecessary charge
in providing themselves to return in
winter to the said cities"-i e., London
and Westminster-"as it was the kings
firm resolution to withstand such great
and growing evil"
Even this had little effect upon the
public in it's first issue, and a copious
list was prepared of offenders, includ-
ing a great number Of the nobility and
ladies and gentlemen, who were accus-
ed of living in London for several
months after the given warning. Most
Of these had made a pretense Of quit
ting the city, to return again after a
brief absence, hoping thus to escape
the penalty of their disobedience.
It came as a bolt from the blue in
1885 when Mr.. Palmer, a large land
holder in Sussex, was brought into the
star chamber and fined 1000 for dis
obeying the proclamation as to living
in the country and remaining in Lon
don after the prescribed period. He
was bachelor, and he urged in his de-
Tense that he had never been married,
had never been "housekeeper" and
had no house fitting for a man of his
birth to reside in, his own mansion in
the country having been burned down,
but his judges were memorable, and
the fine was accompanied by a severe
reprimand for having deserted his ten
ants and neighbors.
In the same year information was
filed against Sir John Sucking, the
poet, and many others for the same Of
tense, and such was the terror caused
by these prosecutions that on all sides
folk of condition and quality were to
be seen preparing for fight into the
country, cursing the hardship of being
confined to their country houses and
leaving town and it's pleasures behind.
To encourage gentlemen to live more
willingly in the country, says a writer
Of the times, all game fowl, such as
pheasants, cartridges, ducks and hares,
were at certain times forbidden to be
dressed or eaten in any inn.
In proclamation issued by Charles
II. in 1661-one of the last in this d.
recton-among the Inconvenience set
forth as daily growing by the spread
OF new buildings were: The increase
OF the people in such great numbers
as to prohibit their proper government
by the wonted officers, the enhance
ment Of the price Of vituals, the en-
fianQQrinp Of tho hoa 1fh ~ %lo o4&1~ l.,