hermen_" No ordinaries,
taverns, &c., to make any supper _on Friday nights, either in Lent or
out of Lent_.

Charles the Second issued proclamations "to repress the excess of
gilding of coaches and chariots," to restrain the waste of gold, which,
as they supposed, by the excessive use of gilding, had grown scarce.
Against "the exportation and the buying and selling of gold and silver
at higher rates than in our mint," alluding to a statute made in the
ninth year of Edward the Third, called the Statute of Money. Against
building in and about London and Westminster, in 1661: "The
inconveniences daily growing by increase of new buildings are, that the
people increasing in such great numbers, are not well to be governed by
the wonted officers: the prices of victuals are enhanced; the health of
the subject inhabiting the cities much endangered, and many good towns
and boroughs unpeopled, and in their trades much decayed--frequent fires
occasioned by timber-buildings." It orders to build with brick and
stone, "which would beautify, and make an uniformity in the buildings;
and which are not only more durable and safe against fire, but by
experience are found to be of _little more if not less charge than the
building with timber_." We must infer that, by the general use of
timber, it had considerably risen in price, while brick and stone not
then being generally used, became as cheap as wood![250]

The most remarkable proclamations of Charles the Second are those which
concern the regulations of coffee-houses, and one for putting them
down;[251] to restrain the spreading of false news, and licentious
talking of state and government, the speakers and the hearers were made
alike punishable. This was highly resented as an illegal act by the
friends of civil freedom; who, however, succeeded in obtaining the
freedom of the coffee-houses, under the promise of not sanctioning
treasonable speeches. It was urged by the court lawyers, as the high
Tory, Roger North, tells us, that the retailing coffee might be an
innocent trade, when not used in the nature of a common assembly to
discourse of matters of state news and great persons, as a means "to
discontent the people." On the other side, Kennet asserted that the
discontents existed before they met at the coffee-houses, and that the
proclamation was only intended to suppress an evil which was not to be
prevented. At this day we know which of those two historians exercised
the truest ju