2. That the said Restraint of the defendant for more than the said Act of 5 Eliz. has made was against law, and therefore for as much as the Statute has not restrained him who has served as an apprentice for seven years from exercising the trade of a tailor, the said ordinance can't prohibit him from exercising his trade till he has presented himself before them, or till they allow him to be a workman; for these are against the liberty and freedom of the subject, and are a means of extortion in drawing money from them, either by delay or some other subtil device or by oppression of young Tradesmen by the old and rich of the same Trade, not permitting them to work in their trade freely; and all this is against the Common Law and the commonwealth. But ordinances for the good order and government of men of Trades and Mysteries are good, but not to restrain any one in his lawful mystery. 3. It was resolved that the said branch of the Act of 5 Eliz. is intended of a public use and exercise of a trade to all who will come, and not of him who is a private cook, tailor, brewer, baker, etc., in the house of any for the use of a family, and therefore the said ordinance had been good and consonant to law. Such a private exercise and use had not been within it, for every one may work in such a private manner, although he has never been an apprentice in the trade. 4. It was resolved that the Statute of 19 H. 7, cap. 7, doth not corroborate any of the ordinances made by any corporation, which are so allowed and approved as the Statute speaks, but leaves them to be affirmed as good, or disaffirmed as unlawful, by the law; the sole benefit which the corporation obtains by such allowance is that they shall not incur the penalty of 40l. mentioned in the Act, if they put in use any ordinances which are against the king's prerogative, or the common profit of the people. Judgment for defendant. [Footnote 272: This case is important as an illustration of the attitude of the Common Law Courts towards rules made in restraint of trade. See below, section III of this Part, Nos. 17 and 24.] 19. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE JOURNEYMEN WEAVERS OF LONDON [_Gildhall Library. The case of the Commonalty of the Corporation of Weavers of London truly stated_],[273] _c._ 1649. Humbly presented to the consideration of the honourable House of Commons.