case Robinson against GROSCOURT a bylaw make by the city of London that every  person use the occupation of music and dance within the city and who shall be  entitle to the freedom by patrimony or servitude shall at the next court after  notice take up his freedom in the company of musician on pain of forfeit ten  pound for every offence be a void bylaw S c comb S c holt comb skin salk the  chamberlain of London bring a action of debt against the defendant for a  forfeiture upon the breach of a bylaw which be remove in this court by a  habeas corpus the lord mayor alderman and sheriff make this return that the  city of London be a ancient city that there have be a custom there time out of  mind for the mayor and alderman for the time be with the consent of other  faithful people to make bylaw for the common good of the citizen as often as  there shall be occasion that their custom be confirm by Act of parliament that  at a commoncouncil hold at guildhall on the eleven of September c a bylaw be  make that whereas the master warden assistant and commonalty of the art and  science of music freeman of the say city have be a ancient brotherhood and  that no person not be a freeman ought to use any art or occupation within the  say city for gain that many foreigner do take upon they the art of dance not  be free of the say city nor member of any fraternity c for remedy whereof it  be enact by the mayor alderman and commons that every person use the  occupation of music and dance within the say city who shall have a privilege  to be make free by patrimony shall at next court of assistant of the company  of musician after notice accept and take upon himself the freedom of the say  company and that every person who have serve a apprenticeship to the mystery  of music and dance and not make free and shall yet exercise his trade shall  forfeit ten pound for every offence to be recover by action of debt or plaint  in the name of the chamberlain in the mayor court one moiety after conviction  to be pay to the Chamber of London the other moiety to the master warden and  assistant of the say company for the use of the poor thereof it be argue for  the defendant that bylaw be good or bad in respect to the end for which they  be make as against fraud by blackwellhall factor against restrain modern er p  the number of cart and coach but where the public be not concern a man shall  not be restrain of his liberty by any law whatsoever modern therefore this  bylaw be void first for the matter because it be trivial there be several  trade so mean that they be not within the intention of the statute of  bankruptcy though those statute speak general of all person use the trade of  merchandise by way of bargain exchange c or otherwise in gross or retail or  seek a live by buy and sell c all custom or law which restrain trade be to be  take very strict because at commonlaw any man may use what trade he think fit  which be now restrain by the statute Elizabeth c to a apprenticeship but that  be perform he may set up his trade where he can most convenient a bylaw  without a custom of the place to support it will not bind salk Mod a now the  custom of this place be that no person not be a freeman ought to use any art  or occupation within the city of London for gain not be free of the city nor  member of any fraternity so that this custom do not bind a man to be free of  any particular company and then the bylaw exceed the custom because though the  person be free yet if he do not take his freedom of the company of musician it  be not good this bylaw tend to deprive person of their freedom though they be  entitle to it by birth or service and to take away the interest which they  have and which be vest in they by custom for there may be a custom to  appropriate particular privilege to a corporation exclusive to all other  person but a bylaw without a custom will not do it because it be against the  liberty of the people in general second the penalty be exorbitant in make the  forfeiture to be ten pound for every offence and this have often be adjudge in  case of lord of manor who have set arbitrary fine on their tenant that  notwithstanding they have power to impose fine yet it must be accord to  justice and reason see Halton v Hassell stram Evelyn v Chichester burr grant v  astle dougl notorious facts a the case which most resemble this be that of  pain v Haughton roll Abr b where the king by letter patent grant a power to  the mayor and commonalty of this very city to make bylaw and this be confirm  by Act of parliament afterward they make a bylaw that no carman shall use a  cart in the city without a licence from the warden of such a hospital under  the penalty of fifteen shilling and it be adjudge void because it be in nature  of a monopoly and make only for the private benefit of such warden without any  respect to the public good modern three the penalty be to be recover by action  of debt or plaint in the name of the chamberlain in the mayor court and one  moiety after conviction to be pay to the Chamber of London now for this reason  the bylaw be void because it be to make they judge in their own cause which be  so contrary to the rule of law that it have be hold   light c that if a judge  take the caption of a fine where he be a party the cognizance be void fourthly  this custom be not apply to those who be free of the city but it be lie at  large to be in the mayor and alderman for the time be with the consent of  other faithful people to make bylaw c which may be people of any other place  and therefore it be nought not be bind up to the freeman of the city for so be  the return in waggoner case   d videlicet de assent partnership the same  community five here be a arbitrary power give to the company of musician who  by admit a man into their fraternity may take what fine they please and if  they refuse to admit he there be no penalty give by this law to the person  thus refuse to compel a admittance which be to put a certain number of man  under the final jurisdiction and power of other and that be contrary to a  fundamental rule in the law therefore a bylaw make by the merchant adventurer  roll Abr e that no man shall buy or sell at four fair within such a prince  dominion without first compound with they and pay a fine be hold to be void  because it be a infringement of the liberty of all other not be free of that  company modern er p six but admit this bylaw to be good they ought to have  return that the defendant have notice of it and the rather because he be not  one of their company and it be a rule in all case where penalty be impose by  way of forfeiture that the party ought to have notice of the law those who  argue on the other side answer some of the objection videlicet as to that  objection that the bylaw be void because a moiety of the penalty be to be for  the use of the city admit it to be void for that reason yet that will not make  the whole bylaw so because it may be good in part and void in part the same  objection be take in the case of player v archer side a where a moiety of the  fine be appoint for the maintenance of Christ hospital and the other moiety to  the mayor and alderman c and there it be insist that the court of alderman  will be both judge and party yet a procedendo be not allow modern neither be  this bylaw contrary to a custom or exclude those who have right by birth to be  freeman because it be necessary that even in such case the party ought to be  free of some company otherwise he can be free of the city and if it be  necessary that the defendant shall be free of a company why not of the company  of musician which be the most agreeable to the art of dance and if he refuse  why may not the court of alderman have power to impose he upon that company as  to the first objection that this bylaw be void because it be make about a  trivial matter the question be not about the meanness of the thing but whether  the subject matter be within the jurisdiction of the court of alderman and if  so then whether they have not do what be reasonable and as to that it can be  deny but that musician be a ancient brotherhood in London and have be always  under the care and government of the city and the law now in question carry a  conveniency in the very nature of it for it be to keep good order in the city  that the youth shall not be teach but by such who be approve master in this  art and it be not the meanness of trade which exclude the people who exercise  such trade from the care of the civil magistrate for then innkeeper combmakers  pattenmakers and many other trade will be under no government which be most  necessary in such mean employment such people be subject to bylaw not in  respect of their occupation but by reason of the district where they inhabit  that they may be keep in due conformity and order it be admit by those who  argue on the other side that a custom may be good to exclude particular person  from certain privilege but that a bylaw can do it now it will not be deny but  that there be a custom in London which enable they to make bylaw and that  their custom differ from other now if a bylaw be find on such a general custom  and make in pursuance thereof it be as good as if there be a express custom  for this very purpose as to the penalty be excessive the court be the proper  judge thereof there be many bylaw where the like penalty be inflict and those  which have the least during all the reign of Edward the six and queen  Elizabeth have forty shilling and some of they five pound so that this be but  a reasonable fine curian though the custom be that whoever be free of the city  must be free of some company yet that custom do not oblige modern a man to be  of any particular company for if it shall then though the defendant be entitle  by birth to be free of such company yet he must also be free of this otherwise  he can exercise this art which be unreasonable they may make he take his  freedom see the case of Wannel v the city of London that a bylaw to oblige a  joiner in London to be free of the joiner company be good stram S c Mod see  also Harrison v goodman I burr pierce v Bartrum Cowp the king v martial term  Rep a but can direct in what company for if they have order the defendant to  be admit of the blacksmith company it have not be good it may be a question  whether the city have a power to enforce man of no trade to be free of those  company which be suitable to their profession as dance be no trade but it may  be call a profession it be true music be suitable to it but it be not absolute  necessary that a dancingmaster shall be free of the musician company there be  no fellowship of refiner but the modern er p court of alderman can order they  to be free of the goldsmith company which be the most suitable to they so that  this can be a good bylaw because the defendant can be compel to be of that  particular company and it be sufficient if he be of any other which be may be  for any thing that appear on this return it be in nature of a monopoly to the  company of musician who can be compel to make he free of that company in case  they have refuse so in Trinity term in the eight year of William the three  judgement be give accord michaelmas term the seven of William the three in the  king bench sir John holt Knt chief justice sir William Gregory Knt sir Thomas  Rokeby Knt sir Samuel Eyre Knt justice sir Thomas Trevor Knt attorneygeneral  sir John hawles Knt solicitor general