1597-1644.

THE LOCAL MACHINERY FOR ADMINISTRATION.

• 1. Powers of the justices.
• 2. Work of the justices in first putting the law in execution.
• (a) In West Riding in 1598.
• (b) In North Riding from 1605 onwards.
• 3. Reports of the justices in response to the Book of Orders.
• 4. The work of the judges.
• (a) Authoritative decisions on points of law.
• (b) Administrative work as the link between the Privy Council and the justices.
• 5. The work of the overseers.
• (a) In 1599.
• (b) When stirred to greater activity by scarcity measures.
• (c) After the issue of the Book of Orders.

The increased activity of the Privy Council, which made the poor law of the seventeenth century more effective than that of the sixteenth, depended for its success upon the activity of the local officials, particularly of the justices of the peace and the municipal authorities. We will now therefore examine the work done (1) by the justices and town rulers, (2) by the judges[375], and (3) by the overseers.

We have seen, in the Elizabethan organisation of Norwich, how much the justices and municipal officers could do when they were at their best, but preambles, proclamations, and letters of the Privy Council combine to tell us that continuous vigour and energy were exceptional. Still the important point is that this local government existed, and under pressure could become effective. It was because the organisation was there that the letters of the Privy Council were so important; if the justices had been powerless officials, Privy Council letters would have been useless. It is because the justices had the power and could be effective, that it is necessary for us to see how far the Privy Council measures stirred them into action.

The Chancellor's charge in 1608 to the justices and judges throws some light on the social position and importance of the justices, and also shows that the Government thought it very necessary that their work should be well done. The Chancellor complained that the justices who did the work could have no place on the bench, and could hardly get into the court "for the number of newe and younge knightes, that come in there braueryes and stande there lyke an Idoll to be gazed vpon and doe nothinge, ys so greate and pressinge for place countenaunce and estimacyon." These young justices are reminded that "they are not Justices for their countenaunce onelye." They and the other justices are exhorted to "remember there oathes and dutyes that they are for the Justice, peace and gouernemente of the cuntrye." They were especially commanded to prevent vagrants from wandering; to see that the proclamation and letters "for corne busynes" were enforced, and that "y^e poore be prouyded for w^thin there paryshes." They were also told that it was their duty to prevent all riotous assemblies at the beginning, and that if there were disturbances they would be held responsible[376]. This speech shows us that the Government thought the peace of the country depended mainly upon the vigilance of the justices, and that the office of justice of the peace was much coveted because of the influence and respect it gave its possessor.

Under the provisions of the poor laws the justices had some duties for the performance of which they were directly responsible, and others in which they had to supervise the overseers and the constables. They were directly responsible for the relief of maimed soldiers, for the maintenance of Houses of Correction and for contributions to prisoners and to such county hospitals as were in existence. They were further the authorities who made the special assessments in time of plague and levied the rates in aid of poorer parishes. To them were also referred questions of settlement and other matters which concerned several parishes. Moreover, although the overseers were primarily responsible for setting the able-bodied poor to work, the justices sometimes levied county rates for this purpose, and occasionally ordered that particular people should be relieved from county funds.

But the hardest part of their duty in this matter consisted in the proper supervision of the overseers. The names of the poor of each parish had to be presented to them, and the assessments sanctioned by them; it was their duty to examine the overseers' accounts and to see that the pauper children were bound apprentices. Moreover, they had to punish negligent officials, to coerce unwilling contributors, and to listen to the appeals of aggrieved persons, whether they were injured ratepayers or unrelieved poor.

The orders of the West Riding Sessions Rolls during 1598[377] give us some idea of the difficulties of the justices in putting the system into execution. The statute of 1597-8 was apparently the first regulation of the kind generally administered in the West Riding, but efforts were made to enforce this as soon as it came into operation[378]. In June 1598 elaborate orders were drawn up for the division of Knaresborough, which show us that the new methods met with considerable opposition. The churchwardens and overseers presented the names of the poor, but they said that all the parishes objected to pay money. The inhabitants preferred to give "releefe" to beggars, and some, they said, could help in this way who could not afford to pay rates. The justices allowed the parishioners to have their own way to some extent. They stipulated, however, that the poor should ask relief of their fellow parishioners only, and that those who were able to work should be set to work. Moreover, the occupiers who lived out of the parish and the inhabitants who refused to give sufficiently were to be assessed[379]. It was not only in Knaresborough that poor rates were unpopular. Seven inhabitants of Tickhill refused to give the sum assessed on them[380], while in Bentley and Arkesey an assessment was duly made, but the money was not paid until the goods of many of the inhabitants had been distrained[381].

This enforcement of local responsibility at first increased rather than lessened the hardships endured by many of the poor. We are told that "divers personnes are nowe sent forth of all partes of this realme to the places of their births; wherof some of those personnes so sent have bene inhabitinge and dwellinge in those places and townes from whence they are sent by the space of twentie yeares, some more, some lesse."

This was done by the parochial officials in order that their own parish might not be forced to support these poor people. They endeavoured to shift the burden to the parish where the people were born, or to get them sent as rogues to the House of Correction, where they would be supported by the county. The justices of the West Riding tried to prevent this unjust practice. No poor of the Knaresborough division were to be sent to the place of their birth without special order from some neighbouring justice of the peace. Moreover, the testimonials of the poor passing through the division were to be examined, and when the bearers were found to have lived more than three years in the parish from which they were sent they were to return again. "For," say the justices, "such kynde of personnes ... are not rooges nor wanderinge beggers within the meanyng of the statute, but ought to be releived as the poore of the parishe wher they so inhabited and wher they wrought when they were able to worke[382]."

The refusal of the inhabitants to pay rates and this illegal way in which the parochial authorities attempted to get rid of the poor they were now forced to maintain indicates that the first enforcement of the new poor law caused considerable dissatisfaction[383]. These difficulties bear out the conclusion that no earlier poor law had been adequately put in force in this district. Now, however, the justices insisted that more should be done, and occasionally they seem to have been successful[384].

The North Riding Records begin in 1605 and disclose a somewhat similar state of things. The system of compulsory poor relief is evidently more generally in operation. Vigilance in enforcing laws designed to prevent the growth of a poor population is one of the signs that the poor rates in a district are high, and in the North Riding much care was taken to prevent the building of cottages without four acres of land, and to punish landlords who took in lodgers[385]. Moreover, maimed soldiers received pensions, the county hospitals were supported and many orders were made for the relief of particular poor people[386]. A House of Correction was also built, though not until 1619, after many resolutions had been passed on the subject[387]. On the other hand, there is also evidence that the organisation did not yet work smoothly. Overseers are constantly presented for neglecting their duties, ratepayers for not paying their rates; sometimes even all the overseers of a parish are presented for not making "cessments," or for not relieving the poor[388], and in one case not only did the overseer neglect to obey the justices' order for the relief of a particular poor man, but the constable refused to obey the warrant for the apprehension of the overseer[389]. If the justices' difficulties in Yorkshire are typical of their difficulties elsewhere, it is not surprising that some of them were negligent.

Between 1629 and 1631 there was a new development in consequence of the frequent orders on behalf of the poor of those years. In each period of scarcity the justices had been told to allot themselves to particular divisions for the purpose of carrying out the special orders sent by the Privy Council. The Book of Orders of January 1630/1 made this a permanent arrangement so far as the relief of the poor was concerned[390]. The justices of each particular division were to meet monthly and examine the overseers and constables so as to see that their duties with regard to the destitute were properly fulfilled.

Not only were these orders made but we have evidence that they were executed. The proclamation of 1629 and the Book of Orders of 1630/1 direct reports of the justices' proceedings to be sent to the Council. About a thousand reports dealing with the ordinary relief of the poor were received and are preserved among the State Papers. A few of them relate to the proclamation of 1629 or to other special letters or inquiries, but the majority are reports as to the execution of the Book of Orders of 1630/1. Moreover, three hundred other documents concern efforts to provide corn at reasonable prices for the poor. These latter begin to arrive in October, 1630, and are numerous in December. The series of reports on ordinary poor relief are exceptional in 1630, but were received frequently in April and May, 1631. Both series of reports were returned until 1633; after that date there are few corn reports, but those dealing with the poor continue until 1639, when both cease altogether[391]. A proclamation is issued in 1640, and, like that of 1629, orders the execution of the poor laws and the provision of stocks for the employment of the poor; it also orders special inquiry by the judges as to how far these orders were executed, and as to how far they were successful[392]. But there are no more reports, and it seems most probable that no more were sent. These documents thus relate to the years 1630 to 1639, that is to the greater part of the period of the personal government of Charles I. They exist in consequence of the action of the Privy Council and form the chief evidence as to how far that action was effectual.

The details of these returns will have to be considered in every part of our subject, and especially when we come to discuss the relief given to the able-bodied poor. We will now only examine their general character, partly in order that we may see what sort of work was done by the justices acting under the special instructions of the Privy Council, and partly that we may understand the kind of evidence which is furnished by these documents. We have seen that the orders issued by the Privy Council to the justices concerning the poor were similar in form to those that had previously been issued concerning corn. The reports sent in answer to them are also similar to the corn reports of 1587. They are sometimes addressed to the Sheriff, often to the judges of Assize, and occasionally directly to the Lords Commissioners or Lords of the Privy Council[393]. The justices adopt many different methods in making their returns. Occasionally they enclose the reports of the overseers, or give a full abstract of them[394]. But more usually the justices only state the general nature of their doings, occasionally inserting details about particular assessments, workhouses, or fresh methods of employing their poor. Incidentally they frequently give us information as to the state of trade, the number of recusants, the population, weights and measures, and the difficulties in the way of administration[395].

There are one or two cases in which they give the minutes of their meetings. One of these is sent by the justices of the Alton division of Hampshire and will give us an idea of how these special meetings were conducted. The Sheriff sent a letter and the Orders to these justices on February 10th, 1631. They held their first meeting on March 12th, and three others before May 1st, so that they seem very anxious to set things in order[396].

On March 12th from Fropfield John Godden was presented for "being drunk on the Sabbath day," John Roake "for liveing idlye," and four others for "useinge unlawfull games in tyme of eveninge prayer." Five children were also placed apprentices. From Petersfield there were three cases of a man being accused of "liveinge idly and mainteyninge himself none knowes howe." Warrants were sent for some others for "teareinge of hedges." Six were fined a shilling each "for beinge absent from diuine service," and John Aylenge paid eighteenpence as he was suspected of being drunk. Richard Wolgatt was presented for keeping "a common alehouse w^thout lycence but noe process beinge made to convict him; yt was prohibited." The children fit for service of this place also were placed apprentices. Similar cases were settled for the other places at the other meetings. But the most important part of the proceedings for our purpose is the presentment of the constables and churchwardens. The constables and tithingmen stated what rogues had been punished in every tithing, "the churchwardens and overseers of the poore made presentm^t of the nomber of theire impotent poore in theire severall parishes, the nomber of theire able poore and howe they are releived and the other sett to worke and of all other thinges concerninge theire office." At the fourth meeting, held on April 30th at Petersfield, the accounts of the churchwardens and overseers were taken and new overseers appointed for the next year. Moreover, besides all this "articles in writing" were given to the constables, tithingmen and overseers of which they were to give an exact account at the next meeting.

The report for the town of Cambridge gives perhaps even a better idea of the work done by the justices but no details of cases. As we shall have to refer so often to these justices' reports, it is worth while to quote this one in full in order that we may have a clear idea of what these documents were like.

As the main part of our evidence depends on the justices' reports we must determine whether the methods described in these returns are typical of those employed all over the country or whether we have reports only from the more energetic justices. Now we hear of some instances of finding work for the unemployed from other sources[398]. If we possessed all the most favourable cases in our reports all or most of these instances would be found amongst them. But this is not the fact; some are reported and some are not. It is clear then energetic administration of the law existed which was not mentioned in the reports now preserved amongst the State Papers. We may therefore conclude that the reports do not come only from vigorous administrators but are fairly typical of the whole country.

The minutes of the meetings at Alton and the report of the justices of Cambridge give us a good idea of the effect of the Orders and Directions on the justices. In the first place they show us that a number of meetings were held in consequence of the Book of Orders. In some cases these meetings seem to have taken place every month throughout the period from 1631 to 1639[399]; but from a report of Lord Fairfax it appears that special inquiries into the requirements of the Book of Orders were made only once a year in his part of Yorkshire[400]. The meetings, even if they were only infrequent, must have had a considerable influence in improving the execution of the poor laws.

On these occasions a number of offences were punished. Some were connected with the relief of the poor because the fines exacted were used for that purpose. Among these were such faults as playing at unlawful games, getting drunk, swearing, the "profanacon of the Saboth," and not going to church[401]. Other cases related to breaches of the vagrancy laws and of that part of the poor law which placed upon the overseers the duty of seeing that all who had not any means were set to work[402].

But the presentment of offenders was only a part of the duties to the poor discharged at the meetings. Arrangements were made for binding children apprentice, and pressure was exercised on the subordinate poor law officials to properly perform their duties. The justices found out how many poor were relieved and what each received, and they inquired whether there was a stock for their employment[403]. They also, when necessary, urged the increase of rates, the raising of a new fund, or the provision of stores of corn to be sold to the poor at lower prices. The whole system shows how much of the social side of government depended upon the justices, and may perhaps induce us to sympathise with the complaint of the gentlemen of Nottingham that they have "little rest either att home or abroade[404]."

The judges also were concerned in the administration of the system of poor relief partly in the ordinary course of their duties, and partly in consequence of the special action of the Privy Council. It was the custom of the time to obtain interpretations of law from the judges in reply to general questions and not only through the decision of particular cases. These interpretations were given not only in such cases as the imprisonment of Members of Parliament, but also in matters affecting the poor law. A long list of resolutions was arrived at on the statute of 1597-8 concerning the interpretation of that statute[405]. Other questions arose later, and were decided in the same way. Thus in 1620 there was a dispute in the town of Lydd which led to the seizure of the bailiff's cattle and his retirement from the magisterial Bench of his ungrateful town[406]. The query is submitted as to the legality of a tax for the poor which was levied on the inhabitants of a parish for their lands and goods in gross, and on the farmers for their land per acre. Sir Robert Houghton and Sir Ranulph Carew decided in its favour, and the paper is endorsed "The question of taxing for the poor of Lydd decyded by the Judges of Assize[407]." We have already seen that the Council told the justices of Suffolk that it was the resolution of all the judges that they themselves might levy a tax to employ the poor[408], and in 1633 also many decisions on points of law were issued as the resolutions of the judges of assize[409].

But the duties of the judges of assize under the orders of the Privy Council were much more important. They had to act as the link between the central government and the county and municipal officials. They were particularly ordered to let the Council know which justices did their duty[410], and many of the reports were sent in to them. In March 1630 we hear that in Suffolk malting was prohibited in the interest of the poor by the judges of assize in order to increase the supply of barley[411]; a little earlier the Norwich authorities had great difficulty in controlling the maltsters, but stated that with the approbation of the judges they had arranged that no alehouse should be licensed but such as entered into a recognisance by sureties to sell two "thurdendeles" of beer for a penny[412]. The work done by the judges is indicated by one or two references of this kind[413], and since some of the later orders of the Privy Council were especially directed to them it seems probable that they had a great deal of influence in enforcing the orders of the Council.

The last authority who was responsible for the execution of the poor law was the overseer. He it was who had to do the work, the function of all the others was to make him do it. It was the duty of the overseers to know all about the poor in their parish; to fix the amount of the assessment and to levy it proportionately. They had also to provide pensions and habitations for the impotent poor, to find masters for apprentices and to procure work for the unemployed. The overseers' accounts for Staplegrove in the county of Somerset in the year 1599 will show us something of their ordinary work. Payments were made by twenty-two parishioners quarterly and by sixteen weekly, while two of the inhabitants took charge of two impotent people. Ten poor people received payment of a small sum every week on what we should now call the outdoor relief system. Besides this money had been disbursed in order to provide for a pauper's burial, to recompense tithingmen for receiving the poor strangers that were brought to them, and to purchase clothes and wood for the older poor and also outfits for apprentices[414]. In this account there is nothing about setting the poor to work, but the rest of the poor law seems to have been well executed in 1599.

The kind of instruction given to the overseers when the justices were stirred to greater activity than usual may be gathered from a paper in the Tanner Manuscripts. It is entitled "A true copy of the charge given to the overseers of every towne the 19 of December 1623," and must refer to some particular county or some particular division. During the early part of this year the price of corn was high and the justices took many measures to provide for the poor. The sufferings of the poor in the preceding winter may be the reason that the justices were more strict in their supervision at this time. There are altogether eight orders, one of which relates to alehouses; the constables and overseers are ordered to see that the labourers and other poor are well served with bread and beer, and that they do not linger longer than is necessary for the delivery of the bread and beer. Another order shows how very inquisitorial was the character of the Government of the time: there was certainly no notion that the Englishman's house was his castle. The overseers and one of the constables were twice every week to search the houses of the labourers at night to see that all were at home, and also to look out for any articles that the people might be suspected of stealing. Several of the orders concern the keeping of the poor at work[415]. Others arrange that children, not yet old enough to be apprentices, should be taught to spin by some honest woman in the town, who was to have a penny a week for each child until it could earn something for itself. Beggars were to be punished, and provision of fuel was to be made for the poor[416]. We can see how far removed this system was from our own notions of liberty, and we can also see that if the overseers performed these orders, they had even more reason than the justices to complain of hard work. There is a great deal about the provision of work and comparatively little about pensions, so that here it seems likely that the overseers were more likely to provide for the impotent without pressure than to find work for the unemployed. During the years 1631 to 1640 we are often told that "articles" were delivered to the overseers, and this document is not improbably typical of some of them. For these are the kind of matters commented on by the justices whenever they enter into details at all[417].

We have seen that in a few of the justices' returns the reports of the overseers were enclosed. The justices of the Liberty of St Alban's sent their answers in this manner. They were responsible for the parishes of Chipping Barnet, East Barnet, Elstree and Northaw. In 1637 they still held monthly meetings, and the overseers' accounts returned at them will give us some idea of the work often done by overseers when they were supervised in the special manner ordered in 1631 and continued until 1640. At the January meeting of 1637 the justices gave "charge that the presentments should be better and more fully certified[418]"; at the February meeting, therefore, fairly detailed reports were returned from three of the four parishes[419]. At Chipping Barnet we hear they have no Popish recusants or non-churchgoers. They have not put forth any apprentice during the month, but are about to bind a certain fatherless child. One of the magistrates undertook to see the boy was bound before the next meeting. One family had apparently been stricken with plague, and had been paid eight shillings before they were shut up; eight weekly pensions were paid to impotent people, one to a "Mad Tib," and two people receive payments for taking care of children. The report also states that "we have in towe and yarne and cloath xx^s and in money to buy more xx^s." From this account it is clear that the poor were actually set to work in Chipping Barnet and that not all the funds available for the purpose were utilised. From Northaw the constables only report, but their return concerns poor relief as well as vagrants. They say all the impotent poor are relieved while the poor that can work are "sett on work and doe not refuse the same." In this virtuous parish also none disorder themselves with drinking or frequent alehouses during divine service on the Lord's day and no idlers could be found though the constables had diligently searched for them. From Elstree we have an account of the pensions paid to certain poor people, and we have also the statements that "we have in stocke for the poore remayning forty shillings," and "we set such on worke as want uppon euery occasion." East Barnet makes no return, and a warrant is sent for the overseers to answer the contempt. On April 9th, 1639, they send a report, and then relieve only one impotent person, but have eight pounds in hand for setting the poor to work[420].

If therefore we may take these reports as specimens of rural parishes, we see that in each parish a stock existed for setting the poor to work, and that there does not seem to have been any great difficulty about the unemployed. The relief of the impotent and the apprenticing of children appear to have been carefully looked after, and the justices were prompt to notice any omission in the reports. We shall see later that there is reason to believe that these parishes were not exceptional, but that under the supervision of the justices the same kind of measures were taken in many parts of southern England.

We have already seen that the central government, the Privy Council, energetically tried to enforce the law, and that this increased energy makes the seventeenth century the important period in England for the poor law administration. We now see that in justices, judges and overseers the local government existed through which the action of the Privy Council could be made effectual. It is in this that England differed from other European countries, particularly from France and Scotland. We have drawn our information chiefly from the official records of Privy Council, justices or overseers. We have noted examples in the work of the justices and overseers in which the action of the Privy Council did have a considerable effect. We have also seen that a large body of evidence exists which will give us much information as to the methods of relief employed, and may enable us to tell how far the system was successful. We have now to see how this organisation affected the poor, and how far it was generally enforced in all parts of the country.

We will therefore cease to examine the system from the point of view of the administrative machinery, and instead consider, first, the relief which it afforded the various classes of poor, and secondly, the extent to which the organisation, whose nature we have described, was employed over the whole country.