[The Master, Wardens, and Community of the Tailors and Workers of cloth of the town of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk brought an action for 13l. 13s. 4d. against William Sheninge. They allege (i) that by the letters patent incorporating them they had power to make reasonable rules and ordinances and to impose fines for breach of them; (ii) that they had made a rule that no person occupying any of the said trades in Ipswich should keep any shop or chamber, or exercise the said faculties, or any of them, or take an apprentice or journeyman, till he should present himself to the Master and Wardens of the said society, should prove that he had served an apprenticeship, and should be admitted as a sufficient workman, on pain of 5 marks fine; (iii) that in accordance with 19 Hen. vii., cap. 7, they had submitted these rules to the justices of assize, who had allowed them; (iv) that William Sheninge had worked 20 days as a tailor without complying. The defendant pleaded he was an apprentice by the space of 7 years, that he had been retained as domestic servant for a year and that as such he made garments for him, his wife, and children, which is the same use and exercise wherein the plaintiffs demur.] And in this case upon argument at the Bar and Bench, divers points were resolved-- 1. That at the Common Law no man could be prohibited from working in any lawful trade, for the law abhors idleness ... and especially in young men, who ought in their youth ... to learn lawful trades and sciences which are profitable to the common weal.... And therefore the law abhors all monopolies, which prohibit any from working in any lawful trade. And that appears in 2 H. 5, 56. A dyer was bound that he should not use the dyers' craft for 2 years, and there Hull holds that the bond was against the common law, and by God if the plaintiff was here he should go to prison till he paid a fine to the king; so for the same reason, if an husbandman is bound that he shall not sow his land, the bond is against the common law.... And if he who undertakes upon him to work is unskilful, his ignorance is a sufficient punishment to him ... and if any one takes him to work and spoils it, an action on the case lies against him. And the Statute of 5 Eliz. 4, which prohibits every person from using or exercising any craft, mystery, or occupation unless he has been an apprentice by the space of 7 years was not enacted only to the intent that workmen should be skilful, but also that youth should not be nourished in idleness, but brought up and educated in lawful sciences and trades: and therefore it appears that without an Act of Parliament none can be prohibited from working in any lawful trade. Also the common law doth not prohibit any person from using several Arts or mysteries at his pleasure....