Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1905-01-12
AFRAID OF BIG CITIES
ENGLAND LONG TRIED TO KEEP DOWN
LoNDoNS POPULATION

ENGLAND LONG TRIED TO KEEP DOWN
LoNDoNs POPULATION
Laws Passed That Made 1t nm oEensc
to Live In the Metropolis and Proc
Iamntions Issued to Restrict the
Size and Number of Buildings.
From the days of Elizabeth to those 4
of Charles III. the various English gov
ernments tried by every means within ,
their power to preserve the kingdom .
from the "evils" attendant upon a .
huge metropolis The frequent out
breakings of the plague-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 |
We're among the contributory causes
which brought about long series of |
vexations and annoying prohibitions.
In 1880 a proclamation was issued
lAC ClCCllOli hAlhlh Inv
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 unlet
should remain empty, and that all un-
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 We're issued
every six or seven years. Thus at one
time buildings were prohibited within
ten miles of London, at another (as
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 demol-
ished.
Further proclamations of the same
period commanded that persons OF
livelihood and means should reside In
their counties and not abide or soJourn
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 unconnected with public
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 its first issue, and copious
list was prepared of offenders, includ-
ing 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
llllS lHc CITY, " IClulA 06dAA oAhNA "a
brief absence, hoping thus to escape
the penalty Of their disobedience.
1t came as d bolt from the blue In
1875 when Mr.. Palmer, a large land
holder In Sussex, was brought into the
star chamber and fined Fl 900 for dis
obeying the proclamation rs to living
in the country and remaining in Lon
don after the prescribed period. He
was bachelor and he urged in his de-
fense that he had never been married,
had never been q ''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 ineXorable, and
the fine was accompanied by severe
reprlmand 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
fense, and such was the terror caused
by these prosecutions that on all sides
folk of condition and quality We're to
be seen preparing for fight into the
country, curslng the hardship of being
confined to their country houses and
leaving town and Its pleasures behind
To encourage gentlemen to live more
willingly In the country, says a writer
Of the times, all game fowl, such as
pheasants, partridges, ducks and hares,
were at certain times forbidden to be
dressed or eaten In any inn.
In n proclamation issued by Charles
H. In 1G61-one of the last In this di-
rection-among the Inconvenience set
forth as daily growing by the spread
of new buildings were: The increase
of the people In such great numbers
rs to prohibit their proper government
by the wonted officers, the enhance
ment OF the price of vituals, the en-
dangering Of the health of the city in
habitants and the damage done to
ihe tradespeople in the boroughs by
The migration downward of the popula-
tlon.
But ii was all Of no avail. Nothing
could stop the increase of "upstnrt
London" as 1t was termed by some OF
the old writer's, and the prediction OF
James I. that England will itself be
LONDON and London England" Is fast
approaching verIfcation. What would
his late majesty say now to those
Ewarms OF gentry who, through the
instigation of their wives or to new
model and fashion their daughters,
neglect THEN country hospitality and
rumber the city. general nuisance to
the kingdom?"
Somewhat over q century later, In
1878, bill was brought before parlia-
ment In which 1t was proposed to put
tax Of shilllngs in the pound Ton
act rents and annual profits on abb
scntee Irish landlords, and this would
appear to be the only recorded at
tempt since to penalize absenteeism In
my shape or form.-London Tit-Bits.
EDlSON'S PLUCK.