THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND PARLIAMENT.

1514-1569.

• 1. Efforts made by the Government to secure the employment of the clothmakers during the crisis in the cloth trade of 1527-8.
• 2. Regulations for the supply of the markets with corn, 1527-8.
• 3. Similar action in regard to corn in 1548 and 1563.
• 4. Letters of the Privy Council to particular local officials in connection with the relief of the poor.
• 5. Legislation concerning the relief of the poor during the reign of Henry VIII.
• 6. The two earlier statutes of Edward VI.
• 7. Legislation between 1551 and 1569.
• 8. Summary.

The Privy Council interfered comparatively little on behalf of the poor in this earliest period of the development of the English system of poor relief. However, in 1528 and on several other occasions the Government issued orders similar to those afterwards issued by the authority of the Privy Council. In 1528, however, these orders are said to come from Wolsey or the king, and it only incidentally appears that the Council had also a part in the matter. Possibly the policy, thus initiated, was the creation of Wolsey or of the Duke of Norfolk, but it was precisely the same kind of policy as that afterwards carried out under the authority of the Privy Council during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles.

The latter part of the year 1527 and the spring of 1528 was a time of great discontent and disorder. At the beginning of the year 1528 England had allied herself with France against the Emperor, and thus the ordinary trade in cloth to the Flemish markets was interrupted, and the Staple was moved to Calais. The English cloth-making industry was already carried on for foreign markets on a fairly large scale. In certain districts the greater number of inhabitants were employed by clothiers, who sold the manufactured cloths to the merchants chiefly for Flemish markets. The declaration of war therefore prevented the usual sale of cloths; consequently when the manufacturers in accordance with the trade regulations then in force brought the cloths to Blackwell Hall, the merchants did not buy as usual and the clothiers ceased to find work for their men. The workers had few other resources and disturbances followed. The Duke of Norfolk was sent into Suffolk to restore order, and persuaded the clothiers to keep their men in employment. He called representative employers before him from every town and told them that the reports concerning the detention of English merchants in Flanders were untrue. "If I had not quenched that bruit," he writes to Wolsey, "I should have had two or three hundred women sueing to me to make the clothiers set their husbands and children to work[97]." The same course was followed in other districts; Lord Sandys writes to Wolsey that he has received letters from both Wolsey and the King, which order him to see that the workpeople are not dismissed. He says nothing of the kind shall occur in Hants., and he hopes that Berks. and Wilts. will be equally well managed[98]. In Kent Sir Henry Guildford obtained a promise that no men should be sent away before harvest[99]. Both Norfolk and Guildford state however that the clothiers cannot hold out much longer, and they ask Wolsey to remedy this by persuading the merchants to buy the unsold cloths in the clothiers' hands[100]. When the king's Council heard of the difficulty, we are told that the Cardinal sent for a great number of merchants, and thus addressed them. "Sirs, the King is informed that you use not yourselves like merchants, but like graziers and artificers; for when the clothiers do daily bring cloths to your market for your ease, to their great cost, and there be ready to sell them, you of your wilfulness will not buy them, as you have been accustomed to do. What manner of men be you?" said the Cardinal, "I tell you, that the King straitly commandeth you to buy their cloths, as before time you have been accustomed to do, upon pain of his high displeasure[101]." The Cardinal further threatened to throw open the cloth trade to foreigners if the English merchants refused to buy as usual.

This remedy might be a clumsy one but it was not ineffectual. The cloth trade, in this instance, was restored to its usual course by the conclusion of a truce between England and the Netherlands. The time during which the contraction of the market occurred was short, and the clothiers could and did lessen the evils of this temporary fluctuation in their trade by continuing to find work and purchase cloths, as in more prosperous times, even though it was to their private disadvantage. A course of this kind was dangerous if the trade was permanently affected, but possible and useful under the actual circumstances, and probably saved the country from serious disturbance. The incident illustrates the fact that the difficulty of the relief of the poor was increased by the growth of manufactures on a large scale, because employment was more unstable, and because all the members of a family and most of the inhabitants of a neighbourhood were often out of work at the same time. Under these circumstances the distress of the poor was immediately followed by riots[102], and the action of Wolsey and the Council was occasioned, not only by the sufferings of the poor, but also by danger to the public peace.

The connection between the distress of the poor and public order is also evident in the corn measures of 1527-8. The harvest of 1527 failed, while in the same year the coinage was debased, so that the average price of wheat was nearly double that of preceding years[103]. Part of this rise was thought to be due to the unfair buying of some of the corn-dealers. A commission was issued setting forth that owing to forestalling, regrating and engrossing "more scarcity of corn is pretended to be within this our said realm than, God be thanked, there is in very truth[104]." The commissioners were therefore to punish all offenders in this respect, and were also to find out by inquiry how great the supply of corn really was and to see that it was brought to market when needed[105]. Some of the reports drawn up in accordance with these instructions are in existence, and give for particular places the price and quantity of different kinds of grain and the number of inhabitants in the district[106]. In Essex and Suffolk the commissioners also talked to the more wealthy people and urged them to buy a store of corn for the poor. It was only however in Colchester and Bergholt that they seemed at all willing to do so[107]. On the whole there were few efforts at direct relief of the poor; the object of the Council was to obtain information and to prevent any aggravation of the scarcity by unfair practices.

At the same time measures were undertaken to lessen the disorder from which the country was suffering. In December 1527 a great search was made for vagrants, and the commissioners report the punishment of valiant beggars[108]. Notwithstanding all this there was a serious disturbance in Kent. The people asked for the return of the loan raised two years before, because they were so sore impoverished by the great dearth of corn[109]. The harvest of 1528 however was fortunately fairly plentiful, and the country again became peaceful. These difficulties again illustrate the connection between poverty and disorder, and show that the Privy Council first came to interfere in these matters in order to maintain the peace.

In 1549 and 1550 the price of provisions was again high, and the people were mutinous. A proclamation was therefore issued fixing the price of corn, butter, poultry, and other provisions. Letters were written to the justices and to the Lords-Lieutenant, and a commission was appointed to enforce its execution[110]. But the whole series of orders was disobeyed and the misery caused by this year of scarcity partially accounts for the rebellions, which ended in the fall of Somerset, and nearly upset the Government altogether. Other instructions were sent out in 1561[111]: the difficulty was a frequently recurring one. The years of high-priced corn were years of riot, and resulted in constantly increasing efforts of the Privy Council on behalf of the poor. We shall see that in future years of scarcity the same difficulties arise, and similar measures are taken. But, as more experience was gained, there was less attempt to regulate prices, and more to directly organise the relief of the poor, so that the efforts to improve the administration of the poor law were closely connected with the measures to provide corn for the poor in years of scarcity.

These orders of 1528 and 1549 were general in their character, and referred, either to large districts, or to the whole country. But the Privy Council also began to interfere with the relief of the poor by urging particular local officials to do their duty. This kind of action is illustrated by the letters addressed to the rulers of Kingston-upon-Hull in 1542 and of London in 1569.

In 1542 letters were sent by order of the Council to Kingston-upon-Hull, requiring the mayor to fix the price of provisions, "as the worckmen sent thither by the King's Ma^tie might live upon theyre wages[112]." Other letters were sent to the rulers of London in March[113] and June 1569 ordering them to be diligent in enforcing the laws against vagrants, and the letter of June 1569 also directly concerns the relief of the impotent poor.

"It will be necessarye," runs the letter, "to provide charitablie for suche as shalbe indede founde unfaynedlie impotent by age, syckness or otherwise to get theire livinge by laboure and for those wee earnestlie, and in the name of God, as wee ar all commanded, requyre and chardge youe all and evry of youe to consider diligentlie howe suche of theme as dwell within youre jurisdicion may be releyved in every parishe, by the good order that is devysed by a late acte of parliament and that thei be not suffred to wander or be abroad as commonley thei doe in the streites and highe waies for lack of sustentacon. And for the due and charitable execucon of that statute, wee thinke it good that the Bysshope or other ordinaries of the diocesse be moved by you in ow^r name to directe commandement to the Curates or ministers in all churches to exhort the parishioners to gyve there common almes at theire churches and to provide remedy against suche as have welth and will not contribut at the churches upon exhortacon and admonicon, and thereunto, wee require you to gyve yor adyes and assistance in every parishe where yo^r dwellinge is, and by yo^r good example incorage others in this charitable good dede etc.[114]"

Thus before 1569 the Privy Council find it necessary to enforce measures for the relief of the poor, though not to any very great extent. Their interference occurs especially in years of scarcity, and forms part of a series of measures undertaken with the object of preserving order.

We have now to see what was the course of legislation during this period, although legislation was not the factor which was most important in creating the system of poor relief before 1569. Not only did the regulations of the advanced towns suggest the provisions of the statutes, but even when the statutes were passed, there is not much evidence that they were enforced, except when the town government was vigorous. They are important, not so much because of their immediate effect, as because they led to the later legislation of Elizabeth, and because they are authoritative expressions of the opinion of the time.

During the reign of Henry VIII. two statutes were passed. The 22 Henry VIII. cap. 12, was designed to prevent those who were not really impotent from begging, and to punish more effectively the able-bodied vagrant.

The preamble states, that the number of vagabonds was not "in any part diminished but rather daily augmented and increased." In the country, the justices of the peace and, in the towns, the mayors, bailiffs etc. were the officers responsible for the execution of the statute. They were ordered to search for the impotent poor of their districts and to give them letters authorising them to beg within certain limits. All beggars who begged outside the specified limits or without a license were to be put in the stocks. The impotent beggars were thus confined to a particular neighbourhood but were allowed under restrictions to beg for their subsistence. Poor scholars, shipwrecked mariners, and released prisoners might only beg if properly licensed. Otherwise they, or any other "valiant beggars," were to be taken to any justice or to the high constable, and by order of these authorities were to be whipped in the nearest market town. After punishment the vagrants had to swear to return to the place where they were born or last dwelt three years, and there to work for their living. A certificate was to be furnished to each of them stating the place and day of punishment, the place where the beggar was to go and the time he was allowed to get there. While on the way he was free from whipping, but if he exceeded his time or went elsewhere he was liable to be whipped whenever caught. Not only were able-bodied beggars punished, but those who gave alms to them were also to be fined, although the old practice of giving doles was allowed to continue, and the masters and governors of hospitals were excluded from the operation of the Act.

The main principles of the statute are identical with those enacted under Richard II., but the directions are much more detailed. Moreover provision was also made for the punishment of the inhabitants of any district where the statute was not executed. The regulations adopted are very similar to those already in force in London, where impotent beggars were already badged and sturdy ones whipped at the cart's tail.

The provisions are chiefly repressive; designed to limit the number of beggars rather than to provide relief. For this reason therefore they were not effectual, and a second statute (27 Hen. VIII. c. 25) was passed also in this reign. This Act was probably drawn up by Henry himself and is similar to measures passed at almost exactly the same time in France and Scotland. The preamble refers to the former statute and states that, "forasmuch as it was not provided what was to be done when the sturdy beggars and impoant poor arrived in their hundreds nor how the inhabitants were to be charged for their relief and for keeping at work the able-bodied, it is now ordered that the authorities of the Cities, Shires, etc." are to "charitably receive" the beggars and relieve them "by way of voluntary and charitable alms in such wise that none of them shall be compelled to wander idly and openly ask alms." The same officers are also to compel the valiant beggars to be kept at continual labour so that they may earn their own living.

Very few people were excepted from the operation of these provisions. Beggars with letters, travelling home at the rate of ten miles a day, are to be relieved; lepers and bedridden people may remain where they are; friars mendicant may beg and receive as they have been accustomed; and servants, leaving their service and having letters to that effect, may be free for a month from the operation of the statute. But with these exceptions, all who have not work or property were to be set to work or relieved. Authority was also given for the compulsory apprenticing of vagrant children, between the ages of five and fourteen, and thus for the first time this prominent feature of the later administration of poor relief appears in a statute. The execution of these provisions involved considerable expenditure, and the Act therefore proceeds to provide for the raising of funds. The Mayor or Governor of every city, borough and town corporate, and the churchwardens, with two others of every parish, were to collect alms every Sunday. This plan is similar to that already adopted in London where, in 1533, the aldermen were ordered to supervise the Sunday collections for the poor. There was no attempt at compulsion, but parsons, vicars and curates, when preaching, hearing confessions or making wills were to exhort people to be liberal. Certain games were forbidden by the same Act and the fines for breaking this or any part of the statutes were to go to the poor.

Alms were not to be given by the individual to any casual beggar but were to be placed in a common box, and doles were to be given only in the same fashion. As a rule each parish thus supported its own poor, but rich parishes were to help poor ones when necessary. Although a great deal of restriction was placed upon the casual almsgiver by these regulations there were many loopholes by which he might still evade the law. It remained lawful to relieve fellow parishioners, shipwrecked mariners and blind or lame people, lying by the wayside. Moreover certain poor people might be authorised to collect broken meat. Noblemen might give to anyone and abbots and friars were commanded to give as before.

This statute is the first in which the state not only enacts that the poor shall be provided for in their own neighbourhood, but also makes itself responsible for the administration of relief and the raising of funds. At the same time the clause, which provided that all alms were to be voluntary and that if they were insufficient the officers were not to be fined, made the Act only permissive in practice, for it could only be enforced when the inhabitants of a district chose voluntarily to provide the necessary money.

In this statute, as in the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12, a double set of officials for the administration of the law is provided. The funds were to be raised in every parish, but the mayor, as well as the churchwardens, was responsible for the collection of the parochial alms in the towns, and the municipal officers were the people who were mainly responsible for receiving and relieving the vagabonds and poor within their jurisdictions. Thus, not only do these two statutes make general the practices which existed in London before the statutes were passed, but they also place their execution in the hands of the same authorities. So far, however, the orders of both Parliament and the towns were directed far more to the repression of beggars than to the collection and administration of funds for the relief of the poor. Legislators seem to have thought that sufficient funds already existed, or could be easily collected, and carefully avoided all approach to compulsory payments for this purpose.

After the dissolution of the monasteries this was no longer the case. No other statute was passed in Henry's reign, but between 1547 and 1569 there were many and, as a rule, these relate chiefly to expedients for raising money.

A statute of 1547, however, relates mainly to vagrants[115]. It provided that a sturdy beggar might be made a slave for two years, and if he ran away a slave for life. The sons of vagrants also might be apprenticed until they were twenty-four, and the daughters until they were twenty, while the punishment of rebellion was slavery. This Act is often condemned as being the most severe Act of a savage series. It is, however, quite possible that it was not considered so savage in 1547. It must be remembered, that under the existing law an "incorrigible rogue" was punishable with death[116], and that this very punishment of servitude is suggested in More's Utopia as a much milder and better punishment than death for both petty thieves and vagrants. The regulation certainly altogether failed, for this part of the statute was repealed two years later: so far as able-bodied beggars were concerned, the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12 was reenacted and the whipping punishment there provided remained in force until 1572.

The statute of 1547 also made some additions to the provision for the impotent poor. Cottages were to be erected for their habitation, and they were to be relieved or cured. This clause was again reenacted by the second statute concerning the poor of Edward's reign[117]. At the same time the apprenticeship regulations were made less severe, and justices were empowered to liberate children on any proof of the misconduct of master or mistress.

The next poor law of the reign[118] chiefly concerns the collection of funds, and was passed in 1551-2.

The officers responsible for the execution of the statute were sometimes municipal and sometimes parochial. The mayor or head officer was to act in the towns; the parson and churchwardens in the country. These officers were ordered to call the householders together and to nominate two collectors who were to gather the alms of the parish, and it is provided that the collectors "shall gentellie aske" of every man what he will consent to give weekly for the relief of the poor. The various sums were to be entered in a book and collected every Sunday. If any man refused to give, he was to be exhorted by the parson, and, if the parson failed to persuade him, he was to be sent to the Bishop. The Bishop was to induce him to contribute and "according to his discretyon take order for the reformacon therof[119]." The Bishop was also to see to the proper employment of sums granted to the poor by Henry VIII., unless they had been taken away by an Act of Parliament. This same statute also enacted that none were "to goo or sitt openlie a begging," but in this respect was in advance of the time, for during Mary's reign licensed beggars were again allowed[120], though the remaining provisions of this statute were continued or reenacted several times before 1563[121]. Early in the reign of Elizabeth, however, a fresh step is taken towards the enforcement of compulsory poor rates. The 5 Eliz. c. 3 originated in the House of Lords, and may have been due to the fact that the Bishops found unavailing their exhortations to stingy parishioners[122]. When a person obstinately refused to give to the poor after the Bishop had duly exhorted him, he might be bound by a recognisance of £10 to appear before the justices of the peace in the country or the mayor, bailiff, &c. in the towns. The justices or mayors were to "charitably and gentelly perswade and move the said obstinate persons" to extend his or their charity towards the relief of the poor of the parish where they dwelt. If any of them again refused, the justices of the peace or mayor and churchwardens might assess what sum he should pay weekly; if he still remained obdurate he might be imprisoned.

It was in this hesitating way that the law first resorted to compulsory payments for the poor. The utmost care is taken to make the contribution as voluntary as possible and only to resort to force when much persuasion had proved ineffectual. Even then compulsion might only be resorted to in the case of obstinate individuals; it was not legally permissible to assess the amount that everyone should give until 1572.

This statute of 1563 was the last enactment dealing with poor relief passed before 1569. In principle, legislation has altered little since the second statute of Henry VIII. In 1569, as in 1535-6, a sharp distinction is drawn between the able-bodied beggars and the impotent. The former are to be whipped and sent to their parish to work; the latter are to be provided for by their fellow parishioners. In both periods also the state appointed municipal or parochial officials to collect funds and to relieve the poor. But there is a great difference in the details of the statutes. The laws of Edward VI. and the first statute of Elizabeth concerning the poor carefully state who are responsible for the execution of each part of the Act and provide penalties for neglect. The two statutes of Henry VIII. are more detailed than the statutes of Richard II. but they were not detailed enough; the enactments of Edward, Mary and Elizabeth add still more precise provisions to secure the better execution of the law[123]. But there is an even greater difference with regard to funds. The laws of Henry presuppose that the poor will obtain sufficient relief from voluntary alms; the statutes of Edward VI. and Mary prescribe the persuasion, and those of Elizabeth the compulsion of the contributors. Society had become too complicated for individual action to be effectual either in restraining idle beggars or in relieving the helpless poor: the duty was therefore undertaken by the state. It seemed at first as if the old voluntary character of the gift could be maintained, but this was soon found to be impossible. Throughout this period, so far as legislation is concerned, an approximation to compulsory poor rates accompanies the increase of the public administration of relief.