Returning to the unpopular statutes of the long parliament, the financial situation must be briefly considered. Henry’s money troubles have already been mentioned. The usual levies by direct taxation, the Fifteenth and the Tenth, had originally been the actual fraction of the tax-payer’s possessions, but since 1334 they had become fixed payments levied from each county without reassessment, and therefore did not represent the wealth of the nation[47]. In addition to the usual Fifteenth and Tenth, the long parliament granted to the King a general subsidy of 1_d._ in the £ on incomes above £20 a year, levied by commissioners who were sent into every shire to discover through the constables the amount which each person ought to pay[48]. In Henry’s reign at any rate a real assessment was made, and the measure was consequently exceedingly unpopular. Another act which was designed to increase the revenue was the Statute of Uses[49]. The object of this statute was to preserve intact to the King the feudal dues from estates which were held directly from him in chief. Such estates might not be given by will, but their holders usually provided for their families by leaving a rent charge on the estate to the use of their younger children or other dependents. The statute abolished such uses entirely, and thus deprived the whole family, except the eldest son, of any income from an estate held in chief from the King. These statutes were all passed at the direct instance of the King, and chiefly for his profit, but statutes of a more disinterested character were not more popular. Tudor statesmen were firmly convinced that it was their duty to regulate the trade of the nation in every possible way. Their constant interference in minute points must have been most exasperating to tradesmen, and although their object was always the common good, such unwise meddling produced bad results more often than good ones, and therefore was detested not only by the sellers, but also by the buyers, whose interests it was supposed to protect. Moreover the common people had no confidence in the government, and were always ready to believe rumours that these acts would turn out to be new forms of taxation. A statute which aroused great indignation in the eastern counties was passed in 1535. Clothiers were ordered to weave into their cloth their respective trade marks, and to specify the length of each piece of cloth on a seal attached to it. Until this was done the aulnager was not permitted to seal the goods. At the same time the legal breadth of various kinds of cloth, which had been regulated by previous statutes, was increased, except in the case of Suffolk set cloths. The provisions of the statute did not apply to the county of Worcester[50].