everyone had to do what the government commanded on conditions settled by authority. [311] _Ibid._, p. 93. Dalton is here quoting almost exactly the words of the statutes 39 Eliz. c. 3, 43 Eliz. c. 2. [312] Resolutions of the judges, No. 10, Lambarde's _Eirenarcha_ (1599) after p. 206. Dalton, p. 99. It is interesting to notice that a case concerning the present law on this point has been recently before the Courts. The Guardians of the poor in Merthyr Tydfil established labour yards and relief works for the purpose of affording outdoor relief to able-bodied persons during a strike. An action was brought by, and on behalf of, the ratepayers of the district against the Guardians asking for a declaration that the establishment of relief works for the purpose of providing outdoor relief for able-bodied persons during a strike was a breach of the Guardians' statutory rights and duties, and also asking for an injunction to restrain the defendants from paying for these relief works out of the common fund when there was plenty of work to be had if the men would agree to accept the wages offered. It was held by Lord Justice Romer that in any case of urgent necessity an able-bodied man or his family ought to have such relief from the Guardians as might be immediately required, even if the necessity had arisen from the man wilfully refusing to work. But when the urgent pressure was relieved, the Guardians ought to require the man to work, and if he were able to get work and still refused they ought to prosecute him under the Vagrancy Acts. It was also decided that though the Court had jurisdiction in an action at the instance of the ratepayers to restrain Guardians from applying the poor rates for unauthorised purposes, still such an action should not be instituted for the purpose of asking the Court whether the Guardians had been right or wrong in granting relief in particular cases. The proper course for the ratepayers to take when objecting to expenditure was to go before the auditors appointed by the Local Government Board or to appeal to the Local Government Board itself. In the present case no instance of relief given except for urgent necessity had been proved and no instances of improper relief had been brought before the Court. The action therefore was dismissed. Attorney-General and others _v._ Merthyr Tydfil Guardians, March 27th, 1899. _Weekly Notes_, April 1st, p. 38. [313] 5 Eliz. c. 4. Anyone who was unmarried or under thirty even if he had a skilled trade could be compelled to serve in that trade or all artificers could be obliged to help in harvest. [314] "A true copy of the charge given to the overseers of every towne the 19th of December 1623," Tanner MSS., 73 II. § 390. The document seems to relate to some particular division of a county which is not mentioned. [315] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I. Vol. 189, No. 66. See Chapter IX.