by the Stuarts, which sought to limit and restrict it, and even to make any meeting of more than twelve men a riotous and criminal assembly.  Indeed, the history of the attempt of the authorities to prevent riotous assemblies quasi-political runs all the way from Jack Cade’s Rebellion in 1452 to the Philadelphia street railway strike in 1910.  By an Act of 1549 unlawful assemblies of twelve “to alter laws or abate prices” were made unlawful—­one of the reasons that gave rise to the English notion that a simple strike was criminal.  This, however, has nothing to do with the political right of assembly which, fully recognized by the Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641, was not definitely established in England until the Bill of Rights of 1689.  Now this principle is cardinal, and so far as I know none of the States have legislated upon the subject, unless the limitation of the injunction writ be such legislation.  A statute of Henry VII gave special authority to the Court of Star Chamber over riots; which is precisely the power now objected to by labor leaders when exercised by courts of chancery.  But it must be noted that this right of assembly only extends to matters political, and does not cover a meeting held for an end ordinarily unlawful, such as to bring about a riot or to work oppression to others or an injury to the public.

The right of election, however, is much older in England.  We find statutes concerning the right of free election, that is, of allowing electors to vote without interference or control, as early as 1275.  It is for this reason that almost from the origin of the House of Commons it has been unlawful, or at least uncustomary, for peers of the realm to even speak pending elections to the House of Commons.  That House also vindicated its right to judge of elections against Elizabeth, and the principle that it alone shall be the judge remains in full force in the United States, though in modern times in England given to the courts.  There is no constitutional principle in England as to the right of suffrage, which in early times was shared in by all free men, or at least landholders.  It was in 1429 limited to the forty shillings freeholders, which law has been relaxed by degrees ever since.  Our early constitutions recognized both property and educational limitations; these were all done away with at one time, except in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the former retaining an educational, the latter a property, qualification.  They have now been abolished in those States, but taken up in the South, for the purpose, of course, of disfranchising the negro vote.