other than a sole without an upper-leather. That fashion hath since been
inverted, and we now, sometimes, see an upper-leather nearly without a
sole. But, whatever was the cut of the shoe, it always demanded a
fastening. Under the house of Plantagenet, it shot horizontally from the
foot, like a Dutch scait, to an enormous length, so that the extremity
was fattened to the knee, sometimes, with a silver chain, a silk lace,
or even a pack-thread string, rather than avoid _genteel taste_.

This thriving beak, drew the attention of the legislature, who were
determined to prune the exorbitant shoot. For in 1465 we find an order
of council, prohibiting the growth of the shoe toe, to more than two
inches, under the penalty of a dreadful curse from the priest, and,
which was worse, the payment of twenty shillings to the king.

This fashion, like every other, gave way to time, and in its stead, the
rose began to bud upon the foot. Which under the house of Tudor, opened
in great perfection. No shoe was fashionable, without being fattened
with a full-blown rose. Under the house of Stuart, the rose withered,
which gave rise to the shoe-string.

The beaus of that age, ornamented their lower tier with double laces of
silk, tagged with silver, and the extremities beautified with a small
fringe of the same metal. The inferior class, wore laces of plain silk,
linen, or even a thong of leather; which last is yet to be met with in
the humble plains of rural life. But I am inclined to think, the artists
of Birmingham had no great hand in fitting out the beau of the
last century.

The revolution was remarkable, for the introduction of William, of
liberty, and the minute buckle; not differing much in size and shape