ardmote laid complaint against Timothy
Louse and John Barker, of Ram Alley, "for keeping their
tobacco-shoppes open all night and fyers in the same without any
chimney and suffering hot waters [spirits] and selling also without
licence, to the great disquietness and annoyance of that
neighbourhood." There were sad goings on of many kinds in Ram Alley.

It is uncertain when licences were first issued for the sale of
tobacco. Probably they were issued in London some time before it was
considered necessary to license dealers in other parts of the country.
Among the Municipal Records of Exeter is the following note: "358.
Whitehall, 31 August 1633. The Lords of the Council to the Chamber.
'Whereas his Ma^tie to prevent the excesse of the use of Tobacco, and
to set an order to those that regrate and sell or utter it by retayle,
who observe noe reasonable rates or prizes [prices], nor take care
that it be wholsome for men's bodyes that shall use it,' has caused
letters to be sent to the chief Officers of Citties and towns
requiring them to certify 'in what places it might be fitt to suffer
ye retayleing of Tobacco and how many be licenced in each of those
places to use trade'; and the City of Exeter having made a return the
Lords sent a list of those which are to be licensed, and order that no
others be permitted to sell."

In the neighbouring county of Somerset the Justices of the Peace sent
presentments to the Council in 1632 of persons within the Hundred of
Milverton and Kingsbury West thought fit to sell tobacco by retail;
and for Wiveliscombe, Mr. Hancock says in his book on that old town, a
mercer and a hosier were selected.

It would seem, from one example I have noted, as if in some places
smoking were not allowed in public-houses. In the account-book of St.
Stephen's Church and Parish, Norwich, the income for the year 1628-29
included on one occasion 20s. received by way of fine from one Edmond
Nockals for selling a pot of beer "wanting in measure, contrary to the
law," and another sovereign from William Howlyns for a like offence.
This is right and intelligible enough; but on another occasion in the
same year each of these men, who presumably were ale-house keepers,
had to pay 30s.--a substantial sum considering the then value of
money--for the same offence and "for suffering parishioners to smoke
in his house." I have been unable to obtain any information as to why
a publican should have been fined an additional