1569-1597. PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

• A. Parliamentary History.
• 1. Discussions, Bills and Statutes between 1566 and 1576.
• 2. Parliamentary history between 1576 and 1597.
• 3. The Bills and Statutes of 1597.
• 4. General features of the discussion in Parliament.
• B. The action of the Privy Council.
• 5. The chief characteristics of the action of the Privy Council.
• 6. The whipping campaign.
• 7. The scarcity measures.
• 8. The influence of the Privy Council on
• (1) the Mayor and Corporation of London,
• (2) other local officials.

The action of municipal authorities in particular towns, which, before 1569, is the main feature in the development in the English system of poor relief, becomes of relatively less importance after that date.

Matters concerning the poor attract increased notice in Parliament and the statutes become more definite and more effective until 1597. An enactment was then passed, the provisions of which, as re-enacted in 1601, have remained almost unaltered until the present century. The leading feature therefore of the period from 1569 to 1597 is the improvement in legislation. But besides the improvement in legislation we must notice the pressure exercised by the Privy Council on the justices of the peace. This becomes more operative and frequent throughout the reign of Elizabeth, but before 1597 it had not attained anything like the same degree of success that it was destined to achieve under Charles I. At the same time local organisation must not be altogether neglected, and now the measures of the justices in the country are important as well as the orders of the towns.

We will consider, therefore, so far as they affect the poor, first, the Parliamentary history from 1569 to 1597; secondly, the action of the Privy Council; lastly, some of the more important local measures and the events of the concluding years of the period 1594 to 1597.

The history of the Bills, committees and debates in Parliament in the period from 1569 to 1597 shows very clearly that the English Poor Law did not come by chance, but was the result of the thought and experience of the greatest men of the time. Their discussions make us realise, that in those days, as in ours, opinion was much divided on the subject, and that in matters concerning the poor it is particularly true that there is very little new under the sun. The earlier part of the parliamentary history of the question circles round the statutes of 1572 and 1576, the later round the code of 1597. Between these two dates there were some slight alterations and additions to the law and a decided change in opinion and feeling.

In 1566, we find notes in Cecil's handwriting on a scheme for preventing a dearth of grain and on the definition of the word "vagabond." He jots down the words "bearwardes," "Tynkers" and "pedlars," as if he were the author of the definition[126] of "vagabond" that was to cause so much difference of opinion in 1572.

These notes were possibly the basis of two Bills which were introduced into Parliament in the session of 1566. One concerned the punishment of vagabonds and loiterers and was introduced into the House of Commons; the other concerned the provision of grain and was considered by the Lords[127]. In neither case did the Bills become law, but it is worth noticing that the question of the provision of grain had been discussed in Parliament as in 1572, and in 1586 the Privy Council again took action in the matter. In 1571 a new Bill, concerning the punishment of vagabonds and the relief of the poor was introduced, and there was an interesting debate on the first reading[128]. One of the chief speakers, Mr Sands, subsequently took a considerable part in the discussion of 1597. He considered that this Bill of 1571 was "over-sharp and bloody" and thought that milder measures would be more successful. If justices would take the trouble, he said, every man might be relieved at his own home: this was clearly feasible because it was actually done in the county of Worcester. Sir Francis Knollys also spoke and was on the sterner side. He would have had a Bridewell in every town, and have had it maintained by a fine of twelvepence from every "Tippler[129]." This is a good illustration of the way in which Bridewell, an institution originally peculiar to London, influenced the discussions in Parliament and was there suggested as a type or model for similar institutions throughout the country.

Another speaker was Mr Thomas Wilson, to whom we owe the organisation of the Record office of his time. Like a modern secretary of the Charity Organisation Society he told his hearers that "it was no charity, to give to such a one, as we know not, being a stranger unto us."

No statute followed this discussion of 1571, but when Parliament again met in 1572 a Bill was brought into the House of Lords which finally became law. The main feature of the debate in 1572 was a dispute between the Lords and the Commons as to the definition of the word "vagabond." The definition in the Act includes[130] (1) proctors or procurators; (2) persons "using subtyll craftye unlawful Games" and "fayninge themselves to have knowledge in Phisnomye, Palmestrye, and other abused Scyences"; (3) all able-bodied persons not having either "land or maister" who cannot give a satisfactory account of their means of livelihood; (4) all "fencers, Bearewardes, Comon Players in Enterludes and minstrels" not belonging to a Baron or other honourable person of greater degree and all "Juglers, Pedlars, Tynkers and Petye Chapmen" unless the bearwards, tinkers etc. were licensed by two justices of the peace; (5) common labourers, able to work, who refuse to work for the customary wages; (6) all counterfeiters of passes and all who use them knowing them to be counterfeit; (7) all scholars of Oxford and Cambridge who beg without being licensed by Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor; (8) all shipmen not properly licensed; (9) all liberated prisoners who beg without a license, and lastly (10) all persons declared vagabonds by the clauses of the Act which concern the impotent poor. A great many people were thus affected by the Act; the unauthorised beggar, the workman on strike, the poor scholar at the Universities, unless he were duly licensed, and the shipwrecked mariner, as well as the fortune-teller and the proctor or collector of subscriptions. All these were abandoned to their fate, but the clause concerning the suppression of "minstrells, bearwards, pedlers etc." caused a dispute between the Lords and the Commons[131]. These men took the place which shops, circuses and newspapers occupy in the life of to-day, and their total suppression would have meant a considerable loss in the country life of Merry England. After discussion the two houses agreed upon a compromise; it was arranged that these people should be allowed if licensed by two justices of the peace, and the Bill became law as the 14 Eliz. c. 5.

The regulations concerning vagrants are severe, more severe than in any other Act except the slavery statute of 1547. For a first offence, a vagabond was to be whipped and bored through the ear, unless someone would become surety for him and keep him in service for a year. For a second offence, he was to be adjudged a felon, unless he could find a surety who would take him into his service for two years; and for a third offence the vagrant was to be adjudged a felon without clergy and might be punished with death[132].

Special regulations refer to some of the pauper immigrants of the time. In the days of Elizabeth these came chiefly, not from the Continent, but from Ireland and the Isle of Man. The unfortunate people were to be punished as sturdy vagrants and sent home again, while the people who brought them over were to be fined twenty shillings for each immigrant.

But "forasmuche as Charitye would that poore, aged and impotent persons should as necessarylye be provided for, as the said Roges, Vacabondes and Sturdye beggars repressed" the clauses of the enactment deal with relief as well as with repression. The justices of the peace were to make a register of the names of the poor in every parish and habitations were to be found for them. Every month the mayor and high constable were to make search for the strange poor and were to send them back to their own neighbourhood.

When the poor had been thus settled the justices in the country and mayors in the towns were to estimate how much it would cost to maintain them. They were then "by their good discretions" to "taxe and assesse all and every the Inhabitauntes," dwelling in their divisions, "to suche weekely charge as they and everye of them shall weekely contribute towardes the Releef of the said poore People."

The mayors and justices were also to appoint collectors and overseers, and the "obstinate person" who refused to contribute was to be brought before two justices and sent to gaol unless he became obedient.

Thus the Act of 1572 does not enforce compulsory payments in the case of obstinate individuals only, like the statute of 1562-3; it also enforces the compulsory payment of an assessed sum upon all the parishioners. The admonition of the bishop is succeeded by the compulsion of the law. This clause of the Act, however, still expresses hesitation; if the parishioner failed to pay, the poor rate could not be immediately distrained; the offender must be brought before two justices and if he remained disobedient was to be sent to gaol. The old theory, that gifts for the poor were good for the giver and should be voluntary, thus still left its traces though henceforward the compulsory poor rate was a part of English law.

In this respect the statute merely adopts a principle which we have seen was already enforced in some of the towns, and its chief regulations do not in any way alter the control of relief exercised by the municipal authorities. On the contrary, the mayors or other head officers are expressly ordered to take the initiative in the towns and are made legally responsible for the execution of the law.

Although the clauses against vagabonds are so unusually severe in this statute the provision for the employment of the poor is very small. This deficiency was therefore supplied by an Act passed four years afterwards.

By a statute passed in the Parliament of 1575-6 a stock of wool, flax, hemp, iron or other stuff was to be provided in every city and corporate town and in every market town when thought necessary by the justices "to the Intente Yowthe may be accustomed and brought up to Laboure and Worke, and then not lyke to growe to bee ydle Roges and to the Entente also that suche as bee alredye growen up in ydlenes and so Roges at this present maye not have any juste excuse in sayeng they cannot get any Service or Worcke ... and that other poore and needye persons being willinge to worcke maye bee set on worcke." Moreover Houses of Correction were to be built in every county and thither were to be sent all who refused to do the work provided for them[133].

These two Acts of 1572 and 1576 were three times continued[134] and remained the basis of the English Poor Law until the whole question was reopened and thoroughly discussed in 1597. In 1593, however, the clauses relating to the death, imprisonment and boring through the ear of vagabonds were repealed and the whipping punishments of the 22 Hen. VIII. were again revived[135].

Between 1576 and 1597 three other statutes were passed dealing with special aspects of the subject. The 31 Eliz. c. 7 was designed to prevent an increasing number of poor families from settling in the country. Only one family might live in one house and no house was to be built in the country unless it had four acres of land attached[136]. The 35 Eliz. c. 6 was passed to prevent an increasing number of poor families from settling in London. In the cities of London and Westminster and for three miles round no new houses were to be built except for people who were assessed in the subsidy book at £5 in goods or £3 in lands. No existing houses were to be divided into tenements and no "inmates[137]" were to be received.

A third Act also passed in 1592-3 made special provision for soldiers and sailors. They were ordered to return to their own neighbourhoods, and the justices were empowered to levy an additional rate for their relief, which was to be distributed to them by Treasurers appointed in every county for the purpose[138].

But it was in 1597 that the many aspects of legislation affecting the poor were thoroughly discussed.

During the years from 1594 to 1597 there was a great dearth of corn and the price rose in some cases to four or five times the average price of the preceding years. There were rebellions in many parts of the country and great distress in all. Parliament met on the 24th Oct. 1597 and the first measure read a first time by the House of Commons was one dealing with forestallers, regrators and engrossers of corn[139]. Francis Bacon then spoke about enclosures. For "Inclosure of grounds," he said, "brings depopulation, which brings first Idleness; secondly decay of Tillage; thirdly subversion of Houses and decay of charity, and charges to the Poor; fourthly impoverishing the state of the realm." He therefore brought forward two Bills on the subject, "not drawn with a polished pen, but with a polished heart, free from affection and affectation[140]." A committee was appointed to consider the matter, which was to meet in the Exchequer Chamber in the afternoon of the same day.

Later, Mr Finch addressed the House, "shewing sundry great and horrible abuses of idle and vagrant persons greatly offensive both to God and the world; and further shewing the extream and miserable estate of the Godly and honest sort of the poor Subjects of this realm," and it was decided that these matters also should be referred to the committee already appointed for enclosures[141].

A few days later Sir Francis Hastings complained that this committee had so far "spent all their travel only about the said Inclosures and Tillage, and nothing about the said rogues and poor[142]." He therefore asked that Bills on these subjects should be considered by the House. At least seventeen Bills concerning this matter were brought forward during the Session of 1597-8, and on Nov. 19th a large and influential committee was appointed to which thirteen of these Bills were referred. To this committee belonged some of the most famous men in the House, for it included amongst its members Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Thomas Cecil and Sir Edward Coke. There were others also who seem to have had special knowledge in matters concerning the poor, such as Edward Hext, a justice of Somerset, who had already written a long letter to Cecil concerning vagabonds; and Sir Thomas Wroth, who seems to have been the special champion of the poor[143]. Their meetings were held in the Middle Temple Hall and continued for the greater part of the Session[144].

The titles of twelve of the Bills then considered give us some idea of the many sides of the question that were then discussed. The following drafts were submitted; the Bill for "erecting of Houses of Correction and punishment of rogues and sturdy beggars and for levying of certain sums due to the poor," for the "necessary habitation and relief of the poor, aged, lame, and blind in every parish," for "relief of Hospitals, poor prisoners and others impoverished by casual losses," for "supply of relief unto the poor," for "petite forfeitures," for "the better relief of souldiers and mariners," for "the better governing of Hospitals and lands given to the relief of the poor," for "extirpation of Beggery," "against Bastardy," "for setting the poor on work," and "for erecting of hospitals or abiding and working houses for the poor." These Bills concern both the relief of the poor and methods of dealing with vagrants; so far as the former was concerned the committee rejected all these proposals and brought in a new Bill of their own. But the Bill for Houses of Correction was amended in the Commons and sent up to the Lords[145].

In the Upper House also there was then much discussion. A bill "for the relief of the poor in time of extream dearth of corn" apparently originated there[146]. Most interest, however, was excited by the Bill for Houses of Correction. The Lords appointed one committee to discuss both Bills and amongst its members were Lord Burghley and Archbishop Whitgift. Several amendments were proposed by the committee which were not at first approved by the whole House. The Lord Chief Justice was therefore consulted and some, if not all, of the additions were accepted[147]. The Bill was sent down to the House of Commons with the amendments. The Commons referred the matter to a committee in which Sir Walter Raleigh took the chief part and which included Francis Bacon, Wroth and Hext. Raleigh proposed a conference with the Lords on the subject. The Lords assented to the conference with the proviso that whatsoever had been amended or added by their Lordships "could not now be altered by the orders of the House[148]." Sir Walter Raleigh reported this reply to the Commons but complained of the manner in which the answer had been delivered, "not using any of their Lordships' former and wonted courteous manner of coming down towards the members of this House to the Bar, but all of them sitting still in their great Estates very solemnly and all covered[149]." A somewhat heated discussion arose between the two Houses as to the way in which the Lords should answer the Commons, and perhaps the friction occasioned by this means contributed to the rejection of the Bill by the Commons by 106 Noes to 66 Ayes[150]. A new Bill for rogues was hastily passed through the House and sent up to the Lords.

The final result of all these discussions, Bills, committees and disputes was a series of Acts dealing with the problems concerning vagrants and the poor from many different sides.

The most important Act of the series is the 39 Eliz. c. 3, formerly the Bill for the relief of the Poor which the great committee appointed on Nov. 19th in the Commons brought in after they had discussed twelve other Bills on the subject. By this Act the relief of the poor was placed mainly in the hands of the Churchwardens and four Overseers of the Poor who were to be appointed every year at Easter by the justices of the peace. These churchwardens and overseers with the consent of two justices of the peace were to take such measures as were necessary for setting poor children to work or binding them apprentice, for providing the adult unemployed with work by means of a stock of hemp, flax, wool, thread, iron or other materials and for relieving the impotent, old and blind. For this last purpose they were empowered to build Hospitals on waste lands. The funds were to be raised by the taxation "of every inhabitant and every occupyer of Landes" and the rates might be levied by distress. An appeal against the assessment might be taken to Quarter Sessions but the assessment itself was to be made by the parochial officers with the consent of two justices of the peace. Rich parishes might be rated in aid of poorer ones and the forfeitures for negligence, made under the Act, were to go to the use of the poor. All beggars were declared rogues except those who begged for meat and victuals in their own parish and soldiers or sailors regularly licensed who were passing to their settlement.

A county rate was also to be levied on the parishes for the relief of prisoners and for the support of almshouses and hospitals, and a Treasurer for the County was to be appointed to administer this relief. Within corporate towns, the head officers had the same authority as justices of the peace in the country.

Another Act passed in this year was entitled "An Acte for the punyshment of Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars[151]."

Justices of the peace in Sessions were empowered to take measures for the erection of Houses of Correction. The old statutes relating to rogues and Houses of Correction were repealed and vagabonds were now to be punished by whipping. They were then to be sent to the House of Correction or gaol belonging to their place of settlement and from thence were to be placed in service if able-bodied or in an almshouse if impotent. If the rogue were likely to be dangerous to anyone he was to be banished, and if he returned was to suffer death. It is a curious part of this Act that the minister of the parish and one other person were to assist by their advice with the punishment of these rogues.

The Bill for Hospitals probably resulted in a statute which re-enacted the old provision that during the next twenty years anyone might found a hospital or House of Correction etc. by simple enrolment in the Court of Chancery and without Letters Patent[152]. Another of the thirteen Bills considered by the committee seems to have become law under the title of an "Acte to reforme Deceipts and Breaches of Trust towching Lands given to charitable uses." It was there stated that the lands appropriated to charitable uses had been misapplied and consequently power was given to the Lord Chancellor etc. to issue writs to the Bishop of the Diocese to inquire into any abuses of the kind and "to set downe such Orders, Judgement and Decrees as the said good, godly and charitable uses may be truely observed in full ample and most liberall sort, according to the true intent and meaning of the founders or donoures thereof[153]."

Two enactments of this series concern soldiers; one confirms the statute of 1592-3 and increases the amount of the rate that justices might impose for their relief[154]; the other provided especially severe punishments against soldiers, mariners and idle persons who wandered "as soldyers or mariners." But on the other hand if a soldier or sailor could not obtain employment in his parish and applied to two justices of the peace, they were obliged to find him work and could if necessary tax the whole hundred for the purpose[155].

The legislation of this year is therefore almost a complete code on the subject, but by far the most important part was the Act concerning the relief of the poor. It was only passed as a temporary measure but was re-enacted with a few alterations four years later. It was in 1597, therefore, and not in 1601 that the whole question was discussed and that the main features of our English system of poor relief were legally established.

This statute differs from earlier statutes, not in the creation of Overseers of the Poor but in making them primarily responsible for the administration of the law. The Act of 1572 first ordered the appointment of Overseers or Collectors. But the burden of initiating measures then rested primarily on the justices of the peace and the head officials of the town. On the other hand the Act of 1597 ordered the overseers to take the initiative, though the justices had still to assent to their proposals and had to see that they did their duty. With regard, however, to soldiers, vagrants and Houses of Correction the justices were still mainly responsible.

For seventy years Parliament had been making legislative experiments with regard to the public relief of the poor and before 1597 at least nine different plans had been tried. At last a law was produced which as re-enacted four years later is unrepealed at the present day and for more than two centuries was almost unaltered.

Parliament grudged neither its own time nor that of its ablest men to solve the question. The personal side of the history of the discussion is interesting. We see Sir Francis Bacon, to use his own phrase, "not with polished pen but with polished heart," Raleigh neither as courtier nor sea rover but as a stickler for the privileges of Parliament and leader of a committee on the poor, Whitgift, not as ecclesiastical disciplinarian, but as practical philanthropist. Burleigh appears but seldom in the discussions but he too sat on the committee in the House of Lords in 1597.

The most important part of the work seems to have been done by the committee appointed by the Commons on November 19th. The law for the relief of the poor was a new Bill framed by the committee after many other Bills had been considered and seems to have been accepted at once by the House. This committee was an enormous committee and the number of bills considered by it was altogether exceptional, and it is to the meetings of its members in the Middle Temple Hall that we owe the making of a workable Poor Law and all its lasting effects on English social life.

Even by looking at the provisions of the statutes, we can see that opinion on the subject had greatly changed since 1569. During the earlier years of the period Parliament tried to exterminate beggary by increasing the severity of the punishment of beggars. If we except the law of 1547, this policy culminates in the statute of 1572, though, even in 1572, increased provision for the impotent poor accompanied increased severity towards able-bodied vagrants. The Act of 1576 indicates the beginning of a great change of thought and policy. Legislators have given up the idea that the existence of masterless men is entirely owing to the idleness and wickedness of the men themselves; they provide materials for employment and Houses of Correction and so recognise that the evil was partly caused by a want of training and by a want of work. In 1597 there was a further change; the most severe punishments against vagrants had been repealed and the most important part of the legislation of this year was the statute for the relief of the poor.

We now turn to the second factor in the growth of the English system of Poor Relief; the pressure exercised by the Privy Council on the justices of the peace. The methods employed were twofold; sometimes general measures were enforced through the whole country or through large districts of the country, sometimes pressure was brought to bear only on particular local officials.

The general measures adopted between 1569 and 1597 consist chiefly of organised searches made for the discovery and punishment of rogues and special precautions undertaken in order to prevent sudden alterations in the price of corn. It is not until 1597 and afterwards that these general measures concern the relief of the poor in ordinary times.

In 1569 there were disturbances in many parts of the country and a serious rebellion in the North. The vagabonds of the neighbourhood increased the disorder and the vagrants of the time were often rebels. It was probably therefore quite as much for political as for social reasons that the Privy Council undertook a whipping campaign against vagrants between 1569 and 1572. In consequence of the orders of the Council reports were sent both from the Council of the North and from many justices of the Southern and Midland Counties. The reports from the North indicate clearly that these measures for the repression of vagrants and the relief of the poor were closely connected with the maintenance of order. In May 1569 the President of the Council of the North writes thus to the Queen from York: "We conferred with the justices of the peace in the county for its good order, and finding great quiet and content by the good execution of the statute for vagabonds, we have taken order that once in every month there shall be a secret search for that purpose throughout the shire, and certificates sent to us until next November[156]." Almost immediately afterwards the rebellion in the North broke out and was suppressed. In December 1572 Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, writes to Lord Burghley from York and sends a copy of letters and articles sent to the justices of the peace of every riding and all the towns named in his commission[157]. One of these articles shows that the valiant rogues were often more than beggars. "To stay the spreading of false and seditious rumours and the sending of messages from the late rebels to trouble the quiet of the realm, order is to be given in market towns and other places that all suspected passengers, vagabonds, beggars, and rogues be punished with severity and celerity, according to the late statute." But even here measures for relieving the necessitous accompany those for repressing vagrants, and the justices were ordered to send monthly accounts of the proceedings taken by them to provide for the poor and impotent.

In the reports from the North the political motives of the Government are obvious, but the character of the organisation is shown better in the replies sent by the justices of the Southern and Midland counties.

To enforce these measures orders were decided upon by the Council and then sent with letters directing their enforcement to the sheriffs and justices of the peace of every county. These justices reported to the Council the methods adopted by them to carry out these orders and the condition of affairs within their jurisdictions.

Many of the reports are still to be found among the State Papers and afford us considerable information as to the state of the country and the extent to which the law was executed. The justices' reports concerning vagrants from 1569 to 1571 are preserved from nineteen different counties. These were made directly to the Privy Council. From some counties like Gloucester and Northampton there are many reports, but from others like Lincoln and Hereford only one was returned. Although the justices of Holland in Lincolnshire only report once they say they will keep watches every month in order that vagabonds may be punished and suppressed[158].

The accounts from different parts of the country vary very much. The Oxfordshire answer is usually "All things be well[159]," but in Northamptonshire there were many vagrants, and apparently they were mostly sturdy rogues for they were usually "stocked" and whipped[160]. Gloucestershire is a fairly average county; in the country round Cirencester we are told there were no "persons disorderly found," but in the division of Thornbury there were ninety-two vagrant men and fifteen children. In Tewkesbury and Deerhurst there were fifteen sturdy vagrants, twenty impotent beggars, and four children[161].

Sometimes great numbers were attracted by particular causes. Thus from Cambridgeshire some reports state, "No such kynde of persons there were found[162]," but in four hundreds forty-seven were arrested, "the number whereof were so greate at that present by reason of the confluence to and from Sturbridge fayer[163]."

When we remember that all the vagrants were taken in two or three searches only and that it is probable that the more capable had ample notice, the results indicate a considerable amount of disorder. On the other hand, the fact that when the proportions are given so many are impotent, and the frequent presence of children lead us to believe that these wanderers were more often people in want than wicked plunderers of their fellow-countrymen.

These orders of the Privy Council were directed towards the decrease of vagrants, but in the replies of the justices we see the close connection between measures of this kind and the relief of the poor. Thus in Essex and Surrey advantage was sometimes taken of the clause permitting the justices to put vagrants to service. At Barking and Walthamstow masterless men were appointed to masters, and at Brixton and Wallingford three out of thirteen were put to service[164]. But the report from Worcestershire is more interesting and confirms the information derived from the speech made by Mr Sands during the debate in Parliament on the Bill of 1571[165]. The justices there said that they had already taken measures to repress beggars and so found very few in the searches now made; the few that remained there were licensed by them but the "greter parte of the poore ar provyded for where they dwell[166]." We can thus see that, though this whipping campaign concerns vagrants, the question of vagrants was inseparably connected with the care of the poor, and that these measures, although undertaken with a view of preserving order, tended to lead to the better organisation of relief.

The next series of measures undertaken by the Privy Council concerns therefore the supply of the markets during years of high-priced corn.

Even in the reign of Henry VIII. London and Bristol had bought a public store of corn in order to prevent scarcity, and in 1528 and 1549 the Privy Council had regulated the buying and selling of grain in order to lower the price but had failed to obtain much result[167]. Between 1569 and 1597 there were three seasons in which corn was exceptionally scarce, 1572, 1586, and 1594 to 1597. In each of these the Privy Council issued similar orders and their action became more vigorous and more successful as time went on.

The sudden rises in the price of corn were in a great measure caused by the narrowness of the area from which a supply could come. There were few means of rapid communication; the roads were bad and the supplies of grain available for a particular district might be in the hands of very few men. It was quite possible for the dealers of corn to prevent corn from coming to a market, to buy up the supplies already there and afterwards raise the price to an artificial height. This was considered unfair according to the commercial morality of the time, and when it was done in the case of a necessary of life it caused great hardship to the poor.

In 1572 enquiries were made as to the price of corn in the Western counties and in Norfolk and Suffolk. The replies received show that it varied considerably even in adjacent counties. In Somerset best wheat sold for twenty shillings a quarter, in Dorset it fetched sixteen, it cost eighteen shillings in Norfolk, while in Suffolk it would be purchased for only fourteen[168]. The next year a commission was issued and the commissioners were empowered to order the farmers to bring corn to market in proportion to the amount they possessed[169].

So far the measures adopted closely resembled those of 1527-8, but in 1586 the organisation had become more developed.

In April and May the Council issued letters to the justices of the maritime districts and to twenty-three other counties ordering them to see the markets supplied with corn and to prevent the abuses of corn-dealers[170]. Notwithstanding there were symptoms of discontent. The workmen in the west of England were suffering not only because the price of corn was high but because there was a lack of employment in the cloth trade. At Romsey certain rioters "pretend that the present dearthe of corn and want of work hathe mooved them to attempt that outrage." In Framloyde, Gloucestershire, there was "a mutinee by the common people, who rifled a bark laden with malt." The justices responsible for Romsey were told to have regard to "their Lordships' late letters for the serving of the markettes and to deale with the principall clothemen and traders theraboutes for the setting of the people on worke[171]." Letters of the same kind were also sent to Gloucestershire[172] and Somerset. In the latter we are told that the spinners, carders and workers of wool lack "their comon and necessarie foode, a matter not onlie full of pittie in respect of the people but of dangerous consequence to the state." Her Majesty, therefore, "tendring the one and careful of th' other" directs the justices to call the clothiers before them and "require and command such of them as have stockes and are of habillitie to employ the same as they have heretofore don so as by them the poore maie be set on worke[173]."

With regard to the scarcity of corn the Council also took further action. Burleigh carefully considered and amended a proclamation for dealing with the difficulty[174]. The three judges, Popham, Mildmay and Manwood, to whom the matter was referred for consideration, made a series of recommendations[175]." These were embodied in a set of orders, the draft of which is amended in Burleigh's own hand[176]. After being signed by the Council[177] these orders were issued early in 1587 to the justices throughout the country[178]. They probably formed the nucleus of the Scarcity Book of Orders of the earlier Stuarts which in turn was the forerunner of the Orders and Directions of January 1630/1.

These directions of 1587 commanded the appointment of juries who were to make an elaborate survey of the amount of corn possessed by everyone, and to state the number of people belonging to the different households. The justices were then to allow each owner to retain as much corn as was necessary for the food of his househood and for seed, but were to order the rest to be brought to market. They were moreover to use "all good meanes and perswasions ... that the pore may be served of corne at convyent and charitable prices." They were also to see to the execution of the laws for the relief of the poor, "that the maymed or hurt soldiers and all other impotent persons be carefullye seene unto to be relieved," and "that the justices doe their best to have convenient stocke to be provided in everye division or other place accordinge to the statut for settinge the pore a worke[179]."

Many reports from the justices were sent to the Council in answer both to their letters and to the more elaborate set of orders of 1587. The justices divided themselves so that some were responsible for each division of the county[180]. They were present on market-days and saw if there were a sufficient supply of corn, and tried to persuade the owners to sell it at a moderate price[181]. They also took measures to check the dealers in corn or badgers. A difference of opinion seems to have existed as to the usefulness of these dealers. The Privy Council thought them mischievous, but the justices of Gloucester find them "honestlie demeaning themselves to be profytable members of this our Commonwelth[182]." The justices often, as in Norfolk[183], made detailed enquiries as to the amount of corn held by each farmer and the number of his household, and in accordance with the information thus acquired they ordered, as in Wootton, Oxfordshire, every corn holder to bring a proportionate quantity of his grain to market[184]. In Gloucestershire they went farther and also fixed the price at which it was to be sold[185].

The Privy Council certainly trusted much to the justices, and both farmers and markets were thoroughly regulated. One cannot wonder that sometimes the corn owners were disobedient[186], though on the whole the orders seem to have been loyally carried out. Even in our own time the poor of Italy and Spain have suffered much from an attempted "corner" in grain in spite of our rapid means of communication and worldwide source of supply. The circumstances of 1587 must have made organisation necessary, for the orders were successful, and when reissued in 1594 it was especially noted that in 1587 they had done "much good for the stay of y^e dearthe and for y^e relieving of y^e poore[187]."

Already in 1586 additional measures were occasionally taken for the relief of the labourers and handicraftsmen. In Norfolk, "the poorer sorte are by persuasion sarved at meaner pryces[188]"; while in the county of Nottingham a philanthropic Duke of Rutland adopted the following expedient, afterwards employed by public authority. When it was known that there was likely to be a scarcity of grain, the Duke caused his corn to be sold in small quantities to the poor two shillings and eight pence under the market price. The justices tell us that by these means "the greedines of a number was frustrated, the poore releved, and the expectancy of excessive dearthe stayed[189]."

But, although the orders issued in 1587 especially command the provision as well of adequate support for the impotent as of work for the able-bodied, very few of the replies report any special action with reference to these matters. There are however one or two exceptions. Thus Arthur Hopton, a justice responsible for the hundred of Blithing, states that 500 poor in adjacent towns were relieved with "bred and other victuall," and that this should be continued for twenty-three weeks[190]. Certain justices of Hemlingford also give an especial charge to the collectors to see that all "the poore aged and impotent persons w^tin everie township and hamlet be sufficientlie releeved as they ought to be," and to "adde a weekelie supplie to the same former reliefe," if the relief they had previously ordered were "too slender for them by reason of the dearth." The justices also especially charge the overseers[191] to see "that all the poore and idle persons in everie towneship and hamlet w^ch are able to labour and want worke be daylie set on worke ... towards the getting of their living according also to the former orders made to that effect[192]." But generally the action taken by the justices both in 1586 and 1587 mainly concerns the supply of corn. Still the whole organisation was made chiefly in the interests of the poor, and both the reports and the orders themselves notice this fact[193].

In 1597, as well as in 1586, the Privy Council endeavoured to supply the poor with corn at reasonable rates, but it will be more convenient to consider that attempt with the rest of the events of those years of scarcity from 1594 to 1597[194].

As a rule in the reign of Elizabeth the object of these scarcity measures was not so much to sell to the poor under price, as to arrange by organisation that the supply of corn should be equally distributed over the whole year, and that consequently the price of corn should be more even for everybody. It was rather to prevent monopoly than to organise doles. It was undertaken chiefly in the interests of the poor because a lack in the supply of corn affected them most; it did not only mean hardship, it meant starvation. It was undertaken by the Privy Council partly with the desire of repressing disorder, because insurrections and scarcity usually occurred together, and it was the object of the Government to keep the people in their "obedience[195]." But already the changed feeling of Parliament is found also in the Privy Council: measures of organised relief were seen to be the most effectual method of repression, and the closer study of the subject resulted in greater care for the poor.

These general measures for the repression of vagrants and the supply of corn are not only important to our subject because they directly concern the relief of the poor; they are even more important on account of their indirect connection therewith. In the first place these measures brought the authorities both of the nation and of the country into contact with the poor, and they were thus led to devise more extensive measures for bettering the condition of their needy neighbours; it became more and more a habit with them to regard matters concerning the poor as a department of Government.

In the second place, by means of these measures dealing with corn and vagrants the organisation was prepared which was afterwards used for the administration of the relief of the poor. The letters of the Privy Council to the justices, the allotment of the justices to their different divisions, the supervision of the judges, and the reports to the Privy Council were all utilised by the system established under Charles I.

If this later system had been administered by a body of officials untrained in the same kind of work, and unused to these methods of administration, it would have had little chance of being well administered. Such degree of success as was attained must have been at least partially due to the fact that the measures for the punishment of vagabonds and for the provision of grain preceded the more detailed orders for the relief of the poor. The new orders were thus executed by county and municipal officials trained to similar duties and used to like methods of administration, and it was in this way that the Elizabethan measures of scarcity have an important influence on the growth of the English administration of the Poor Law.

But sometimes the measures of the Privy Council were not general: pressure was placed only on particular local officials. We will first examine a few cases of this kind concerning the City of London. We have already seen that in 1569 there were two sharp letters of the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor censuring him for his neglect in matters concerning the vagrants and poor[196]. In 1573 the Lord Mayor refers again to the displeasure of the Council and had apparently received a similar letter[197]. In this way therefore the Privy Council censured neglect and commanded local officials to remedy the abuses of their administration.

Sometimes we see the authorities of London asking the advice of the Council with regard to the measures that they have themselves prepared. Orders for the poor were drawn up in 1579 and again in 1594, and in both cases the Lords of the Privy Council were consulted[198]. The Lords of the Council also call attention to particular difficulties. In 1583 they recommend special measures to prevent the increase of Irish beggars[199], and they repeatedly write to order increased vigilance in enforcing the regulations against small houses and tenements which have been newly erected[200]. Special matters are sometimes arranged by them; in 1594 the City rulers are told to meet the justices of Middlesex in order that they may take joint action to repress vagrants[201]. Even details come under the notice of the members of the Privy Council, and in 1596 they directed the Lord Mayor to see that the corn in a particular ship was sold to the poor and not bought up by dealers[202].

The Council thus was apparently very well informed as to the condition of affairs and had power to interfere with effect even in matters of detail whenever the rulers of London were inclined to be slothful.

We have not the same detailed information with regard to other towns, but we can see that this kind of action on the part of the Lords of the Council was by no means confined to London. We find them writing to Burghley himself and insisting on the appointment of Provost Marshals in Hertfordshire and Essex who were to take especial care to repress vagrants and idle persons[203]; they rebuke the Devonshire justices for not providing properly for old soldiers and sailors[204]. They write to Cambridge and order that care be taken to prevent the increase in the number of tenements in the town[205], and they especially commend the Norfolk justices for erecting a "fourme for the punishment of loyterers, stubborne servantes, and the settinge of vagabondes, roages and other idle people to work, after the manner of Bridewell[206]".

There is enough to show that the Privy Council was often active and that its interference had a considerable effect, but that before 1597 this interference was only occasionally exercised.

This pressure exerted by the Privy Council on justices and municipal authorities becomes the most important factor in the development of the English system of poor relief in the next century. Law was not yet enforced merely because it had been enacted, and in regard to the poor no force of continued habit as yet made public opinion compel negligent officials to do their duty. So far men objected to pay rates; they were not firmly convinced of the duty of the state to relieve the poor.

The pressure of the Privy Council was therefore necessary to enforce the law. But the habit of interference in these matters and the organisation that alone could make interference have much effect grew very slowly. Before 1597 we can see this habit of interference and this organisation growing, but as yet it is only utilised occasionally and to meet some special emergency; it is not part of a general system which almost everywhere commanded obedience.