REVIEW OF THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POOR RELIEF, 1514-1569.

• 1. The action of municipal rulers precedes the action of Parliament.
• 2. Advantages of the municipal system of relief.
• 3. Connection between the municipal organisation of poor relief and the dissolution of the monasteries.
• 4. Relation of beggary to first schemes of relief.
• 5. Parental government.
• 6. Bridewell, the keystone of the system.

Before 1569 no effectual system of poor relief had been established, but many experiments had been made. At the beginning of the century a serious problem was before the Government. The social changes of the time had resulted in the formation of crowds of vagrants, and the greater complexity of economic conditions made the position of the workfolk more unstable. Even in ordinary times, therefore, the vagabonds were a constant plague to the peaceful citizen, and when corn was dear or work was slack the greater number of the inhabitants of particular districts, being without resources, joined in riots or rose in insurrections. There were then no Friendly Societies or workmen's clubs, and no casual wards or workhouses. Years of scarcity were therefore always times of disorder and the peace of the whole country was threatened. Assistance given by means of private charity, monasteries and hospitals failed to relieve the distress or to remedy the evil. Force was tried; thieves were hanged and vagabonds were whipped. But, even as early as 1515, Sir Thomas More saw that the root of the evil was much deeper, "Neither ther is any punishment so horrible, that it can kepe them from stealynge, which have no other craft, whereby to get their living[124]."

Even before 1569 the statutes had appointed authorities both for the collection of funds and for the distribution of relief, and had made contributions to the poor compulsory. But, on the whole, the practice of London and certain other towns was in advance of the regulations of the statutes; the main feature of the period is the municipal organisation of poor relief. London in 1547 and Ipswich in 1557 had made regulations for levying compulsory payments for the poor, long before any statute had authorised the exaction of compulsory payments for this purpose. Nor is this the only matter in which the regulations of the towns seem to suggest the provisions of the statutes. Before the 22 Hen. VIII. had ordered vagabonds to be whipped at the cart's tail, London vagabonds had been so treated; before the 27 Hen. VIII. had ordered the collection of alms for the poor on Sunday by municipal and parochial authority, that method had been adopted in London. London, Cambridge, and Ipswich had, before 1569, built up an elaborate organisation for dealing with the poor, an organisation that seemed complete, but failed because it was municipal and not national.

The history of the legislation of the time thus shows that the Tudor Poor Laws did not, like modern Factory Acts, initiate regulations never before enforced. On the contrary, the provisions of these statutes reveal the beginnings of the national system, following the same line of development as that which had already been reached by many particular towns.

There were some advantages connected with this independent municipal action, which is thus characteristic of the relief of the poor before 1569. It was possible for the central Government to estimate the practical effect of their measures before they became law, because they were already probably adopted in some towns.

Another advantage that belonged to the municipal organisation of the times was the close connection that existed between the authorities who administered poor relief and those who administered charities. Most of the London charities seem to have belonged either to the parishes or to the Companies. The parochial charities were administered by authorities closely connected with those responsible for the public system of poor relief in the parishes, and the City charities were administered by authorities closely connected with the public system of poor relief in the City. Moreover the work of all the parishes was controlled by the same central authority.

The connection between the municipal organisation of poor relief and the dissolution of the monasteries is not altogether clear. Long before 1536 the difficulty of repressing beggars was serious, and the alms of the townsfolk were wasted upon unworthy recipients. Between 1514 and 1533 London had already taken measures both to restrain and license its beggars and to collect alms for the poor. It is probable, that had the monasteries continued to exist, these measures must have extended. But the existence of the doles of the monasteries was in itself an obstacle to the better government of beggars, because the relief given by them was in no way controlled by the same authorities. In London the hospital of Savoy preserved during the reign of Mary an independent existence, side by side with the hospitals under central management, and we find that the City authorities complained of even this one hospital, and said the beggars there relieved were a cause of disorder, and a hindrance to the good government of the City. Had all the old monasteries and hospitals maintained an independent existence it is difficult to see how the regulations of the town rulers could have had much effect, unless the religious endowments also had been subject to municipal control. Moreover the monasteries had relieved many poor at their gates, and among the monks and nuns themselves were probably many who were unfit for the battle of life. These people had to be provided for as well as the unrelieved poor of former days. The immediate need was therefore greater after 1536 than it had been before. At the same time responsibility in the matter fell more directly on the citizens. While the old religious foundations existed, it was supposed that they ought to provide for the poor; now they were destroyed, the responsibility must be fixed elsewhere. It was the citizens whom Latimer and Lever blamed for neglect. Moreover some of the spoils of the dissolution fell into the hands of the municipal rulers, and sometimes they were charged with administering them for the use of the poor. This would certainly facilitate their action and would perhaps lead them to consider the relief of the poor especially as a municipal duty. Something of the kind seems to have happened at York, and possibly also at Cambridge.

In any case it is certain that, after 1536, the citizens of London set themselves much more vigorously to work to deal with the poor; that the royal hospitals were founded partly from the dissolved monasteries, and that the foundation of these hospitals first led to the compulsory taxation of 1547 for the poor in London, and called into existence the governors for the poor. Municipal care for the poor therefore existed before the dissolution of the monasteries, but became much more extensive afterwards, both because the need was greater and because the rival authority was suppressed.

The close relation between beggars and the new system of poor relief is also apparent. The first efforts of Town Councils and Parliament were occasioned by the great increase in the number of begging poor; the earliest orders concern the punishment of able-bodied beggars; the others were left to voluntary charity. But the able-bodied beggars were sometimes unable to obtain work and the impotent beggars were sometimes unrelieved. The system of the royal hospitals of the City of London was founded by the City rulers to meet these difficulties. They considered especially three kinds of beggars; children, sturdy beggars, and the impotent poor; they built or refounded all the hospitals in order to provide for one or other of these classes. Occasionally begging was forbidden altogether, but as a rule beggars were not altogether banished, but some of them were provided for in hospitals or by pensions, and the rest were licensed. As soon as the system was established, even as early as 1557, the distinction between beggars and other poor was clearly seen and recognised, but still, it is true, that the organisation first grew up in order to lessen the number of vagabonds, and chiefly concerned beggars.

Still the regulations of the town rulers were not entirely confined to beggars. The articles, drawn up "at the meting of the towneship of Burye the XIIII^th daie of Januarye 1570" (1571), illustrate the sort of family duty recognised by the municipalities towards their members, and the corresponding right of interfering with individual freedom. After commanding everyone to go to church on Sunday, the next regulation orders every person "suspected of loytring" to declare to the constable every Sunday in the morning "where he wrought everie daie in the said weeke," and "if any labourer shall not be provided of worke on the Sondaie for the weeke following, then the curate or cunstable to move the parishe for worke." The burgesses also order a certain Agnes Servall to go to service before Easter and in the meantime "to keep her church on the sabbath days. If she failed to do so both mother and daughter were to be whipped[125]." The town discipline was severe however much the parental rulers might look after the welfare of all the inhabitants. The relief of the poor was very closely connected with parental government of this kind. But both the suppression of beggars and the exercise of this family responsibility on the part of municipality or state involved means of coercion.

The institution of Bridewell was therefore the keystone of the whole system. Vagrants were not reformed by whipping or by the fear of hanging, because they preferred to run the chance of capture when starvation was the alternative. Unorganised almsgiving failed even more conspicuously. But organised relief accompanied by a House of Correction was a step towards the solution of the problem. It also was in full harmony with the parental idea of government and the practice of state regulation of economic matters which existed throughout the reigns of the Tudors and earlier Stuarts.

The creation of the first Bridewell and the organisation depending upon it was the work of the citizens of London. It needed great liberality: gifts were then for the most part voluntary, and the result shows considerable public spirit on the part of the richer classes and a great sense of the corporate unity of the City by the whole body of citizens. It is true that the liberality did not last; that the isolated action of single towns could not deal with a national difficulty, but the town rulers began to make experiments, to train officials and to create the custom of relieving the poor. They did not themselves succeed in solving the problem, but without their incomplete regulations the national organisation of the future would hardly have been possible.