acte of parlement, by whiche it is ordeigned y't no such
slaughter of best shuld be vsed or had within this cite, and
that suche penaltees be leuyed vpo the contrary doers as in the
said acte of parlement ben expressed.

"Also in anoyding of lyke annoyauce. Plese it my Lord Mair,
Alderme, and Como Councell, to enact that noo manor pulter or
any other persone i this cytee kepe from hinsforth, within his
hous, swans, gies, or dowk, upon a peyn therfore to be
ordeigned."--pp. 83, 84, 3d. ed.

I believe that one item of "folk-faith" is that "farm-yard odours are
healthy." I have often {100} heard it affirmed at least; and, indeed,
has not the common councilman, whom the _Times_ has happily designated
as the "defender of filth", totally and publicly staked his reputation
on the dogma in its most extravagant shape, within the last few months?
It is clear that nearly four centuries ago, the citizens of London
thought differently; even though "the corupte savours and lothsom
innoyaunc" were infinitely less loathsome than in the present Smithfield
and the City slaughter-houses.

It would be interesting to know to what act of parliament Arnold's
citizens refer, and whether it has ever been repealed. It is curious to
notice, too, that the danger from infuriated beasts running wild through
the streets is not amongst the evils of the system represented. They go
further, however, and forbid even the _killing_ within the city.

Moreover, it would really seem that the swan was not then a mere
ornamental bird, either alive or dead, but an ordinary article of
citizen-dinners, it being classed with "gies and dowks" in the business