1569-1597.

LOCAL ORGANISATION OF POOR RELIEF AND THE EVENTS OF THE YEARS 1594-1597.

• 1. The organisation of London with regard to the poor.
• 2. The organisation of Norwich.
• 3. The action of other towns,
• (1) Concerning the settlement of new-comers.
• (2) Concerning the unemployed.
• (3) Concerning the raising of funds.
• 4. The events of the years of scarcity 1594-1597.
• 5. Summary of the period 1569-1597.

Improvement in the organisation for the relief of the poor during the period from 1569 to 1597 is found in the local as well as in the central government. We will now look at the local side of the question. It is possible to obtain a fair idea of the kind of action adopted by the rulers of shire and borough by examining first the measures of London and Norwich in detail, and secondly some examples of the methods of other towns and counties.

We have considered the action of the Privy Council with regard to questions affecting the poor in London, but we have not as yet looked at the measures themselves.

Some of these were designed to carry into effect the Act of 1572 which we have seen was the first law that gave statutory authority for compulsory assessment for the relief of the poor. In Sept. 1572 the Mayor issued a precept to the aldermen which commanded each in his ward to see that the constables and other "sad and discrete personnes[207]" made certain inquiries about the poor of every parish. They were to find out the names and surnames "of suche aged, decayed and impotent poore people" as "of necessitie be compelled to lyve by almes," and were to ascertain who had been born in the parish or had lived there three years before the beginning of the last Parliament.

The Lord Mayor in issuing this precept relied on the municipal and not on the parochial authorities. It was apparently unsuccessful, for later commands were sent to the aldermen on Sept. 5th ordering them to make these same inquiries through the churchwardens[208]. Three days later more detailed instructions were given to the same effect. The churchwardens and other responsible men in every parish were "to examyne which poore are to be releved in everye of the said parishes and to be provided for according to the last statute made for that purpose." The aldermen were to set down the names of the poor and how long they had dwelt in the City and how much each of them ought to receive "that they nede not begg." They were then to make an assessment of "everye Inhabitant that nowe payeth nothinge" to help his needy neighbours and, if there was any cause to increase the sum paid by any rich man, they were to note what increased amount they thought necessary[209]. Thus the old voluntary payments seem to become the basis of the first assessment under the new statute, while a few wealthy and stingy givers were coerced.

Unfortunately the fund thus raised was not sufficient and efforts were made to reduce the expenditure and to collect the whole of the amount assessed. The aldermen were to summon the governors of the hospitals and were to interview the poor people themselves as well as the churchwardens. They had then the unpleasant task of lowering the pensions already granted because "the colleccon all readie appoynted will not serve to advance suche ample pencons." They had also carefully to see that no one received anything who was not born in the parish or an inhabitant for the full time appointed by the statute[210]. By these means it was hoped that it would not be necessary to spend more than the sum raised by this semi-voluntary poor-rate. In March, 1573, the contributions for the next year became due while some of the contributions for the previous year were still in arrear; the Lord Mayor found it necessary to complain of the negligent execution of the statute for the poor "by reason whearof this Cittie before this tyme bearinge the name of a Lanterne to all other the Quene's maiestie's domynions in example of good order and due execucon of good Laws is accompted to some farre behynde other places in the due execucon of this statute to the greate greffe of well willers to the same[211]." Henceforward every part of the precept concerning the poor was to be "dulye and carefullie put in execucon."

By next year it was evident that even if the assessments were properly paid the funds would be insufficient. The Mayor therefore fell back on the old plan of collections in the churches after the Sunday sermons[212]. An ancient custom of the City was also utilised. The Companies in state attended by turns the sermons in Easter week at St Mary's Spittal. Special collections were then to be made for the poor and the money given to the Mayor that it might be distributed where there was most need "by the handes of good and godly citizens[213]."

In these precepts of 1572, 1573, and 1574 the City rulers employ voluntary methods and avoid compulsory poor-rates as far as possible. It is however evident that the voluntary subscriptions were inadequate. The municipal basis of the organisation is strongly marked; the sums collected under the assessments were to be paid to the governors of Christ's Hospital and the chief part of the money seems to have been expended by the City and not by the parochial officials[214].

The City rulers also attempted to deal with the poor all over London by an organisation founded upon a series of orders or articles for the poor. In 1576 a set of regulations was issued dealing with the duties of "the parish," of the "constables" and of "surveyors" with regard to vagrants. The parishioners were to choose a surveyor every Sunday who was to attend every night for a week and help the constable in the search for sturdy beggars. Every fortnight at least the constable, beadle and churchwardens were to visit the houses of all the poor people in their districts and were to order any of the new arrivals who were unable to support themselves without burdening the parish to be sent away[215]. These commands only concerned vagrants and new comers and are of far less importance than the regulations of 1579.

In that year orders were issued which if carried out would have provided methods for dealing with all classes of the poor and, but for the Elizabethan phrases and Elizabethan whippings, we should be much more inclined to think that they were passed by a London County Council in 1899, than by the Corporation of the City in 1579. In August of that year the Common Council resolved that "an Acte for the poore" should be drawn up and considered, and a few days later the book was read to the Council and "established as a lawe[216]."

There is a double basis for the administration of these regulations: the vagrants were dealt with by the municipal system working through the hospitals; the impotent by the parochial officials. Children and the able-bodied poor came under the jurisdiction of both. The vagrants were to be brought to Bridewell and there divided into three classes. Those who were not diseased and did not belong to the City were to be "dealt with according to the lawe," that is, they were to be whipped and sent to their settlement. Those who were ill were to go to St Thomas's or St Bartholomew's and when cured to return to Bridewell and be treated in the same manner. But the "sturdy beggars" whom "the Cittie by law is charged to provide for" were to be received into Bridewell: they were to be "there kept with thin diet onely sufficing to sustaine them in health" and were to be made to work at the occupation for which they were most fitted[217]. If any vagrant was skilful in any of these occupations and a citizen were willing to employ him, the governors were to try to make arrangements for him to be taken into service. Over the rest of the London poor also the parochial officials were commanded to keep a strict watch. In each parish the constable, churchwardens, collectors and six parishioners were to make a general survey of all their needy neighbours. The name, age and sex of each was to be noted and pensions were to be given to those who were disabled. Children were to go to Christ's Hospital if there was room, and if not were to be provided for by the parish. The able-bodied poor were told to make "their mone" to the churchwardens or collectors and were to obtain a "Bill" signed by two of them and then to be provided with work at Bridewell or elsewhere.

It is even suggested both that all the poor should be visited "daily if it may be ... to see how they apply theyr work" and that "Such youth, and other as are able to labour and may have worke and shal be found idle shall have some maner of correction by the parents, or otherwise as shalbe thought good in the parish. And if they wyll not amend they shalbe sent to Bridewell to be reasonably corrected there." Thus the two main features of these orders were first, that the parochial officers were to exercise a very strict surveillance over all the poor of their district and were to provide the impotent poor with outdoor relief, and secondly, that the City officers were to punish vagrants and find work for the unemployed. No one was to be allowed to settle his own affairs; fellow citizens and fellow parishioners were to provide work and see it done, and were also to see that the youth of the City were well trained.

Some efforts were made to provide against some of the difficulties which were likely to hinder the execution of these commands. In order to lessen the charges as much as possible the governors were to try to persuade the masters of ships to engage their men from Bridewell; they also adopted the very modern expedient of registering the names of employers who were willing to give work to the poor who were sent to them[218]. The old regulation was reaffirmed that the goods made by the poor should be sent to the Companies and paid for by them so as far as possible to prevent competition between the pauper-made goods and those of the free citizens.

The funds necessary for carrying out this organisation were to be provided by a tax of two-fifteenths and by revising "the bookes of taxations for the poore[219]." Besides "for helpe of the Hospitals and Parishes in this charge all churchwardens and collectors for the poore be strayghtly charged to execute the lawe against such as come not to church, against al persons without exception, and specially against such as while they ought to be at divine service, doo spend their time and their money lewdly in haunting of plaies and other idle and wycked pastimes and exercises."

Some steps were taken to put these orders in execution and twenty-five occupations were practised in Bridewell. Amongst these were such trades as the making of gloves, silk lace, pins, bays, felts and tennis balls, so that some of the workers must have required considerable skill[220]. But on the whole the new rules suggest the comment "Easier said than done," and so apparently the City authorities found. The Lord Mayor complains of the difficulty of keeping order in the City in consequence of the increase in the number of the poor owing to the erection of many small houses in Kentish Street just across the boundary of the City[221]. Even in 1594 begging was not entirely abolished. In that year a new set of orders was drawn up with the object of repressing vagrants, and it is provided that "no suche poor people as by reason of age and other infirmitie have been allowed heretofore to aske and take almes of well-disposed persons be henceforth so permitted to doe any more but that the wardes whear they inhabit be forced to maintain them in some convenient sort without begging or straying[222]."

The measures of London on the whole indicate a good deal of activity on the part of the City rulers, but until the close of the period there is little sign of success. In London as elsewhere it is a period rather of the growth of organisation than of successful administration. Still the kind of system adopted throws a great deal of light on the social ideals of the time. The daily visiting of the poor and the constant watch that was to be kept over them show that little respect was paid to individual freedom. On the other hand the orders of 1579 indicate that the municipality endeavoured to carry out the provisions of the Elizabethan Poor Laws for the employment of those who wanted work and the relief of all who were in need of maintenance.

But the system adopted by Norwich is the most remarkable of the municipal organisations of the time. As early as 1565 the Dean and Chapter granted St Paul's Hospital to the city. This hospital was also called the "Systers of Normans" and had been used partly as an alms-house and partly as a house of entertainment for poor strangers. It was one of the conditions of the grant that the provision for the poor should be maintained, and after 1565 part of the building was made into a House of Correction for the poor who would not work[223]. The establishment of the Bridewell by itself was of little good, and we hear that in 1570 the poor of the city were in a state of great disorder, and that the citizens contrived to effect an entirely new state of things. So well did they succeed that the fame of their system was known in all parts of the country, and the Archbishop of Canterbury asked for information as to their proceedings. The citizens consequently drew up an account of their doings and a "copi of the wrighting lefte with may L. of Cant. grace the 19 April 1572" is still preserved[224]. There the citizens state that in 1570 there were more than two thousand beggars in the city. That in consequence of this the beggars were demoralised. They were idle and would not work at all, they became wasteful and threw away the food given to them, and they also became drunkards and lived wicked lives, and so were a scandal to the whole town. Moreover, although beggars were fed, they were improperly clothed and housed, and consequently contracted disease and were a centre of physical as well as moral pollution. Besides, there were no proper means taken to clear the city of strange beggars, and the number of poor in the city continually increased. We are told also that the statute (of 1563) was not successful in inducing people to contribute sufficient alms "upon which occasion was forced to followe compulsion," and a collection was therefore made both to restrain the loiterers and to relieve the poor.

The condition of affairs here depicted shows that the relief of the poor was an urgent practical necessity, and that when the existing law proved insufficient the citizens had no hesitation in imposing other regulations of their own.

They began by making an elaborate census of all the poor in the city. They give the name, age, occupation and dwelling of every man, woman and child of the poorer classes. They stated whether they received alms or not, and they sent a small number away from the city or to the House of Correction. The greater number they classified as "able to work," "not able to work," and "indifferent." Most of these poor people were able to work and very few altogether incapable[225]. There were nearly four hundred men, more than eight hundred women, and almost a thousand children thus enumerated. The men belonged to every kind of trade, there were many weavers, tailors, carpenters and glaziers. The women more often than not spun white warp. With regard to the children it is astonishing how often the little boys of seven and eight go to school[226] and sometimes also the little girls. Children of six are often reported to be "idle[227]." We shall have many other proofs of the fact that some attention to popular education was not a creation of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but that it was fairly general during the days of good Queen Bess and the first half of the seventeenth century. Work was however begun sometimes by very young children, especially by the girls. For example, Gifferne Potterne a "cordiner and in worke and Anne his wife that botcheth" had three daughters, the eldest was nine years old and span, while the others went to school: two of the youngest workers were two daughters of Christobell Roll, "the eldiste of the age of seven yeres," these packed wool. There are many other entries of the same kind that show that the children began to work when they were nine or ten or younger still.

After the census had been made the Mayor, John Aldriche, issued a proclamation forbidding begging altogether in the streets of Norwich and ordering all strange beggars to depart. All the poor of the city who could not work were to be relieved and the others were to be "set on work." A new assessment was therefore made and the contributions were in many cases considerably increased[228].

The poor who were to receive relief were then specified, and the payments made to them though still small are greater than they had been before. Other arrangements were also made: some were sent away from the city; others were placed with the "select women"; masters were found for the youths, and inquiries were made to see that servants were hired for the whole year[229].

The Mayor was to be the Master of Bridewell, four aldermen were appointed commissioners of the poor and all officers were to be appointed by him. Regulations concerning Bridewell were made: a bailiff was appointed and twelve incorrigible idlers were to be kept at work there[230].

But besides Bridewell in every ward "select" women were to be appointed, and they were to receive women, maidens or children "whose parents are not hable to pay for theyr learninge." These were to be so taught "as labore and learninge shall be easier than idleness," and the work was to be done "trewelie and workmanlye" under pain of sharp correction[231]. The deacons were to see after the rest of the poor; to set those fit to service to serve, to place others with the select women, to relieve those that wanted help and to see that none begged or were brought up in idleness[232].

Besides all this an orphanage was refounded at St Giles' where twelve children were to be brought up until they could maintain themselves.

A little later certain aldermen and commoners were appointed who presented an elaborate series of orders to the assembly. These were adopted and a very thorough organisation was introduced.

Begging was entirely prohibited and every beggar was to receive six stripes with the whip; the people who gave to beggars were also to pay the fine ordered by statute and fourpence for every time besides.

These orders were put in force about May, 1571, and when they had been adopted about a year the citizens enumerate the great advantages they had derived from them. "Theis orders have been attried," they write, and "put in practize in the seyd Citie and is founde to redowne to theis commodities thereafter ensuing."

They proceed to enumerate the sums earned by nine hundred children at sixpence a week; of sixty-four men "which dailie did begge and lived ydlie and now beinge forced to worke" earned on an average a shilling a week; and of one hundred and eighty women who earned twenty pence each a week "one with another." Strange beggars were sent out of the city, and the poor were better looked after and no longer had need of collections for the healing of their miserable diseases. Altogether the citizens reckoned they saved £2818. 1s. 4d. a year in money. Besides this the most disorderly kinds of people no longer resorted to the city "and the magistrates trobles for them be marvellouselye easied."

This organisation of 1570 was essentially a municipal organisation, but we can see that the statutes considerably influenced the town rulers of the time. They had tried the semi-voluntary system of collection authorised by the statute of 1563, and had found that funds could not be collected in this manner. They therefore employed more compulsion without any hesitation. They punished "according to the statute" people who gave to beggars, and they added a special fine of their own. The statutes themselves made the organisation for the collection of funds municipal as well as parochial and it is interesting to see this double system in working order. The deacons collected the rates of their particular parishes and paid the pensions granted to the poor. But it was the Mayor or his deputies who saw that everyone was assessed at the proper amount. The payments of a parish did not necessarily meet the expenses; the rich parishes paid for the poorer ones. The deacons accounted to the aldermen responsible for the ward; and some paid to them their surplus while others received the sums necessary to make up the deficiency[233].

Norwich seems to have been the first English town to prohibit begging altogether; the system of licensed beggars was still employed in most parts of the country.

The detailed accounts for the poor of Norwich were preserved down to 1580 and show that the organisation was in full working order for ten years. One of the compilations relating to this organisation was begun in 1576 and the whole tone of this book shows that the citizens of Norwich were very proud of their doings in matters concerning the poor[234]. It is perhaps the only place where the purely municipal organisation for the poor was successful for any length of time. There were difficulties again in the seventeenth century but as long as the first enthusiasm continued the system seems to have worked well.

The work was done thoroughly and placed on a sound basis. The House of Correction and the select women were maintained by the side of a sufficient collection for the relief and training of the poor, and, probably for these reasons, the system continued to be successful as long as the administrators continued to give it the necessary amount of supervision.

The citizens of Norwich seem to have partially overcome one of the principal difficulties of a purely municipal organisation by very rigorous settlement regulations, quite as severe as any that were ever enforced after the statute of 1662. For instance a Jane Thornton is to depart because she "in summer live in the cuntrie but in wint^r charge the citie," and "Richard Birch and his familie" were to go to Thorpe though he was not at this time (1570) in receipt of alms. There are many cases of the same kind and these continue throughout this period of ten years and occur again in the seventeenth century.

This kind of action with regard to new settlers was not confined to Norwich but probably extended to all parts of the country where there was much systematic relief of the poor.

We will now consider some of the various plans for the relief and organisation of the poor adopted in other towns.

We will first see how the municipal authorities dealt with settlement; we will then investigate various methods of dealing with the unemployed; and lastly we will examine the different ways in which funds were collected.

With regard to questions concerning the expulsion of new comers the statute of Charles II. (13 and 14 Car. II. c. 12) does not appear to initiate a new custom. Municipal control in this matter begins before 1569. Whenever the town made a vigorous attempt to maintain its own poor, many efforts were made to prevent new comers from settling within its borders. Sometimes the landlords were forbidden to subdivide tenements or build more houses of the poorer sort; sometimes the citizens were fined for entertaining poor inmates, and sometimes the inmates themselves were ordered to depart.

Thus in London the landlords first are restrained. In a resolution of the Common Council of 5 Edw. VI. it is stated that "capytell messuages and houses" had been turned into alleys and the class of vagabonds was greatly increased. It is therefore ordered that the inhabitants of these alleys should pay their rent to the House of the Poor in West Smithfield and not to their landlords[235].

In Aug. 1557 it is not only the landlords but the occupiers who are to blame, and they are ordered to put out of their houses "vagaboundes," "masterles men" and "evill disposed persons," and in future not to receive any one of the sort[236].

The municipal rulers of Ipswich also, in 1557, the year in which a compulsory Poor Rate was enforced, appointed "searchers for newcommers into the Towne[237]," and in 1578 provided that searches shall be made forthwith "for new commers and servants, retained for less than one yere," and that the constables are to warn new comers to depart the town[238].

In Cambridge in 1556 an inquiry had been made concerning new comers but apparently the town rulers were not very vigilant, for in 1584 the Privy Council ordered them to remove as many small tenements as might be consistent with the public convenience[239].

In St Albans as at Norwich we find that the regulations were very complete. In 1586 monthly searches were instituted: and the searchers were commanded "in the limits of their several Wards" to "make search for such new comers to the town as being poor may be likely to be chargeable to the same, and if they shall find any such within either of their several Divisions to give notice thereof to Mr Mayor, that order may be taken for their sending away[240]." We hear of orders made for the expulsion of particular poor people because they were likely to be in need of relief, and in some cases we can see that this practice caused great hardship to individuals. Thus John Tompson, a joiner, had taken a poor woman into his house and as she was likely to become chargeable she was ordered to quit the borough[241]. Moreover we have the later plan of finding sureties already in operation. John Palmer was admitted a freeman, a Thomas Browne undertaking that Palmer's children should not become chargeable to the Borough[242].

We thus see that the statute of Charles II. did not impose hardships on the poor never before endured. It is a curious instance of the adoption by statute of a custom that had long existed. The custom had been enforced without statutory authority while the town government continued to possess semi-independent powers, but it could not be enforced without statutory authority in later times. The statute therefore stereotyped a custom that had long been in existence in the towns and would otherwise have become obsolete.

This practice of preventing settlement has a far closer connection with the social order of the reign of Elizabeth than with that of Charles II. It was a great hardship to the poor, but it was a hardship to which they had long been partially accustomed and which fitted in with the economic policy of the towns.

In most towns the right of exercising skilled trades and of opening shops was denied to any but freemen so that many difficulties were already imposed on the settlement of new comers. The organised relief of the poor increased these difficulties, it is true, but it did not altogether create them.

But it is more interesting to examine the experiments of the time with regard to the unemployed.

In some districts a stock of materials was purchased either by private charity or by municipal funds. Portions of these materials were given to the poor that they might manufacture them. The finished article was then returned and afterwards sold, while the worker was paid according to the value of his labour. Sometimes a master was employed to teach the trade. Thus a Mr Watts left certain lands to the Mayor and Corporation of Rochester partly for this purpose. An old parchment roll contains the rules of the charity. The Mayor was to choose one honest citizen or several as "Providours of the Poore." The "Providours" were directed to buy flax and wool "to set the poor to work." This was to be worked into yarn and the spinners were to be paid for their labour. The yarn was to be sold in the open market, if possible, at a profit[243]. The same kind of plan was probably in operation at Canterbury and Colchester. Archbishop Grindal bequeathed a hundred pounds to Canterbury[244] for the purpose of providing the needy inhabitants with work, and Lady Judde left a like sum to Colchester "as a stock to buy and provide from time to time Wool, Yarn, Flax and such other merchandize and things as the season should require; for the setting on work such poor persons, inhabiting within the said Town, and Liberties of the same, as should be able to work and labour[245]."

In St Albans we know more of the details of the experiment and find that there training was provided as well as employment and the funds were furnished by the town. In 1588 the town rulers engaged a Dutchman named Anthony Moner to teach the poor of the town to spin worsted and other yarns[246]. Eight pounds were taken from the town chest in order to pay for the looms, combs and wheels which were to be used. Inquiries were made throughout the town for poor children who could be spared to learn the new trade; they were to be taught in six weeks and then paid for their labour[247]. About the same time terms were arranged for four men to be taught by the Dutchman. When taught they were to be paid through "the Company[248]," so that apparently the custom of St Albans was like that of London; the work of the poor was sold through the Company representing the citizen workers of the same occupation. The corporation paid £10 for the original stock of wool and every two tods were to be paid for when the next were fetched[249]. The undertaking is therefore partly an example of the employment of the poor by municipal capital and partly an early instance of technical education provided by town rulers.

Something of the same kind was probably done at York. In 1578, £400 was raised for "settyng the poor of this citie on worke," half of which was contributed by the city and half from the money of Sir William Bowes. In the will of Thomas Brafferton money was also left for this purpose and more detailed directions were given as to its use. A stock of wool, flax or hemp was to be bought and "delivered within the parishe of Thornabie to be by them wrought and made into cloth and the poore people for the working thereof to be paid after such rate as nowe or hereafter shallbe used for such lyke work within the said parishe[250]." In 1591 proposals were made for the same kind of undertaking at Lincoln, and a technical school was established at the expense of the corporation[251]. At Leicester also the town contributed money on several occasions to set the poor people to work[252]. In 1597 the Court of Quarter Sessions in Devonshire make an order that means for setting the poor to work should be provided by the local justices as if this were quite a usual practice[253]. There is no reason to suppose that the instances above quoted are exceptional. There is however more evidence on the subject during the next period.

But perhaps more often a workhouse or hospital was erected. At Reading one was built on the site of the house of the Grey Friars. This hospital contained twenty-one children and fourteen old persons. The funds were provided by the poor's box, by private contributions, by collections in the three parishes, and by the work of the poor. The accounts are in existence from 1578 to 1648, and the value of the work of the poor was very considerable. For the fourth quarter of the year 1578 it amounted to £12. 8s. 8d.[254], and this at a time when the ordinary sum paid for the maintenance of an adult poor person was about a shilling a week. There were also Poor Houses at Colchester and at King's Lynn[255].

But the most general arrangement made for the unemployed poor and for vagrants was the erection of a House of Correction. The House of Correction before the Civil War was not in all cases nearly so much like a gaol as it afterwards became. Often it was also a hospital for the old, and an industrial school for the young. Christ's Hospital at Ipswich is a good example of this kind of institution. This hospital was founded in 1569 and was controlled by the town. Governors were elected yearly who were to meet every week, and a paid official called a guider was appointed to look after the poor there. In 1594 and in 1597 such guiders were elected and the orders drawn up on these occasions tell us the nature of their duties. In 1597 for every person sent to the hospital who was to be forced to work and "corrected" the guider was to receive fourpence, after that he had nothing for their keep but their work. But for others who were sent to Christ's Hospital and were not to be "corrected," twelve pence a week was paid, and the value of their work also. In the orders of 1594 the guider is allowed eightpence a week for those unable to work, and special provisions were made about the clothing of the children[256]. It is thus quite evident that at Ipswich the hospital was used, not only for vagrants, but also for children and for the impotent; not only for people who deserved punishment, but also for people who were simply in need of relief.

In the well-known example of the House of Correction at Bury the scale of diet and daily routine are specified. There were two principal meals, dinner and supper, and on days when meat was eaten everyone was to have eight ounces of rye bread, a pint of porridge, a quarter of a pound of meat and a pint of beer; on the fast days instead of meat one-third of a pound of cheese or one or two herrings were provided. Those that behaved well were allowed a little bread and beer in addition, and those that would not work were limited to bread and beer only. On the whole the diet compares favourably with that of a modern workhouse. All were to rise at four in the summer and five in the winter, and had to work until seven, with intervals for morning and evening prayer. The amount of punishment was minutely regulated; the "sturdy rogues" were to receive twelve stripes, while those guilty a second time of "unchaste or unchristian speeches or behaviour" received three[257].

Many Houses of Correction were built in the later days of Queen Elizabeth. The "moste parte" of the hospital of Reading was to be converted into a House of Correction in 1590 "aswell for the settinge of the poore people to worke, being able to worke for theire reliefes and for the settinge of idle persons to worke therein as also for the punishinge and correctinge of idle and vagrant persons[258]." At York also in 1584, arrangements were made at St Anthony's "for the punnyshment of such rooges as will not worke[259]."

Bristol, Winchester, Gloucester and Exeter also founded institutions of the kind, but at Exeter though one was founded there was some difficulty connected with it, and we are told that the citizens "afterwards repented[260]."

Thus before 1597 many Houses of Correction were in existence, and, though according to several authorities they were allowed to decay for a time, in the next reign they became general.

But these were not the only methods by which the poor were set to work. Pressure was put on employers both by public opinion and by official authority. The Gloucestershire justices report concerning a disturbance in 1586 and say the clothiers were not in fault, for "the clothiers here doe yet contynue to keepe their poore in worke as in former tymes they have donne althoughe it hath been to their greate losses; and soe they are contented to doe as longe as they maie occupie their trade without undooing of themselfs[261]." The fact that this report was made shows that blame was attached to the employer who turned off his workmen in bad times; to some extent the master and not the man was expected to take the risk of the fluctuations of the markets. In 1591 the Town Council of Ipswich went further and ordered the clothiers "to sett the poore on work" within the town, at the same time providing that, if any refuse the work or misuse their material, they were to be punished by the bailiffs[262].

Thus the provision of work for the unemployed was made in many different ways. Sometimes materials, teachers and implements were paid for by municipal capital, often workhouses were established, occasionally pressure was put on employers, and the most usual plan of all was to establish a House of Correction, which was used both to punish vagrants and to relieve the poor. But these attempts to provide work, though numerous, were not universal and there is some reason to believe that before 1597 many of these efforts had failed and needed to be revived in the succeeding years.

The expenses of the organisation for the benefit of the poor were largely a new charge on the public purse, and difficulty was frequently experienced in finding the necessary money. Before 1572 there was no statutory right to make rates for this object, but we have seen that the borough authorities did enforce compulsory payments and levied local rates for this and other purposes. The old methods were continued and new ones tried during the period from 1569 to 1597. Sometimes the basis employed was that used for national taxation. The chief direct national taxes of the time were fifteenths and subsidies. A fifteenth was nominally a tax on moveables, but after 1334 the total amount never altered, and each town had to pay an invariable sum[263] which was apportioned from time to time among the local inhabitants; lists would thus be prepared of how much everyone had to pay, and these furnished a convenient basis of local taxation. Probably the earliest compulsory payment for the poor was the fifteenth levied in 1547 in London, and in 1579 two more fifteenths were imposed there in order to carry out the organisation of that year[264]. At other times fractions of a subsidy were exacted for local objects. In 1585 in order to meet "the charge of the poore" at Ipswich the fourth part of a subsidy was levied "uppon suche as are in the subsidy," while the rest were to be assessed by a Committee "according to their best discretion[265]." At Bury also the subsidy book was utilised for this purpose in 1589 when the House of Correction was founded. Every person whose land was rated "in the subsedy booke" at twenty shillings was to pay sixpence in the pound, and every person "being sett in the subsedye book at 3 li. goods to paie IIII^d[266]."

Another method of collecting money for the poor was by means of local dues. At Ipswich tolls were exacted from ships entering the harbour, and payments were also made by all who were admitted freemen, by all who had "a writing acknowledged," and by all who had a witness examined before the bailiffs in writing[267]. Sometimes fines and payments by individuals for particular privileges were devoted to this purpose. At Ipswich those who opened shops on Sunday paid their fines to Christ's Hospital. A parson who had incurred a penalty by suing for too much tithe was ordered to deliver to the hospital "60 combes of tanne[268]," and a man of St Albans obtained a license to keep an alehouse before anyone else on condition that he paid twopence weekly towards the support of a certain orphan[269]. Akin to this method of raising money was the practice of persuading a man to take a town apprentice in return for the freedom of the town or some other privilege[270].

Soon after the accession of Elizabeth new methods began to be adopted, and a special scale of payments was fixed where the poor were concerned. In 1570 at Norwich the citizens neglected to give according to their ability and so compulsion had to follow. The basis of the first assessment was the old voluntary collection. If a new-comer arrived after 1576 he was taken to the mayor or his deputy and assessed by him at a suitable sum[271]. In London also we have seen that the first assessment under the statute of 1572 was based on the payments formerly made, but the amounts were to be increased when there was any cause. In Ipswich also by 1579 there was apparently a special assessment for the poor, for it was then ordered that "all the persons in this Towne rated to pay to the poore, shall presently pay soe much mony as by computation his rate shall amount unto for one monthe and neverthelesse continue the paym^ts of their rates as they are rated[272]." It seems that in Ipswich the practice of levying poor rates according to the value of the house was already adopted.

Sometimes a large sum of money was raised at one time to form what was called a "stock." This fund was let out at interest to various people or invested in land and the sums arising from this interest or rent were used though the capital remained untouched. During the reign of Elizabeth the various public bodies lent out a good deal of the money in their hands in this manner. In 1584 there was an inquiry into the management of funds so raised at Winchester and the bishop sent a declaration on the subject to the Council. Some of the money had been used for the poor in the parishes and some for the House of Correction. A hundred and twenty pounds had been given for the use of the poor in the parish of Twiford; this had been lent at the rate of ten per cent. and the £12 so obtained had been or was about to be distributed to the poor[273]. The large sum of £1009 had been spent on the House of Correction and no proper account was made. In future, however, the justices were to levy a rate on the parish so that no parish paid more than fourpence a week and so that the average amounted to twopence.

Thus we see that during this period all kinds of plans were tried. There was no attempt to enforce any theory that the required sum ought to be levied according to the value of lands occupied or according to the wealth of the payer. The authorities were sorely puzzled how to raise the money and adopted any plan that was likely to be successful.

We will now consider the events of the years of scarcity from 1594 to 1597, both so far as they concern the central Government and so far as they concern local officials. They are interesting both because of what the authorities did during these years and because of what they failed to do. The year from Sept. 1572 to Sept. 1573 was the last in which the average price of wheat was under 20/- a quarter. From 1594 onwards there was a succession of bad harvests owing to the excessive amount of rain. Wheat quadrupled in price, and barley and rye, which were the grains ordinarily used for the bread of the poor, rose nearly in the same proportion[274].

In 1594, the Privy Council ordered the reissue of the orders of 1587, and the justices were directed to meet together that they might devise means of putting them in execution[275]. In 1595 further efforts were made to enforce these instructions of the Government. The justices dwelling near London were called to the Star Chamber, and an oration was delivered to them by the Lord Keeper, which had been committed to him by the Queen herself without any direction from the Council[276]. He stated that the old custom of making an oration at the beginning of term had been discontinued heretofore, "but now, considering the presente scarsitye her Ma^tie of her own speciall care and regarde to her louinge subiectes hathe gyven in charge to us[277], to delyuer in this place her owne speciall direction for the redresse hereof." The justices were to overlook "the certificates in former times made accordinge to some former orders in that case provided" and were to punish the offences of "corne maisters and mongers" with great severity. They were to go to the markets and persuade the farmers to bring their corn, and if need be "to use there authoritie therein." They themselves, assisted by all those of the better sort, were "to make a somme of monie" and therewith to buy corn to be sold in every market without any profit. Moreover the justices were to repair to their country homes and maintain a hospitable house. The Lord Keeper also complained that there were too many justices, and Her Majesty "therefore like a good huswyfe looking unto all her houshold stuffe" had herself marked the names of some who were no longer to continue in the commission. Those that remained were to look to the execution of the statute of retainers, to the keeping of "waches for the punishing of rouges and idle persons," and "were to exercise Justice with a Herculean courage[278]." At the same time the Council sent orders to some particular justices. In 1595 they apparently sent to the justices of Devonshire and advocated selling corn underprice to the poor: the justices reply there was no need for such a step for the markets are well furnished and the price falling[279]. But as a bad harvest again followed the distress became worse. In 1597 the Lord-Lieutenant also wrote to the Devonshire magistrates commending the relief of the poor to their especial care, and this time the Court of Quarter Sessions immediately issue orders for their relief. The Constables were to "take a view" of all the poor and of all the wealthy people in the district and to report the result to the justices. One, two, three or more people were to have one or two meals given them every day by each householder. If the householder failed the justices might make an order for a payment, not exceeding eighteenpence a week "for every pole." In addition a special rate was to be imposed for setting the poor to work[280]. Moreover the Lord Chief Justice admonished the justices of Wiltshire in 1597 probably under instructions from the Council. The justices are ordered to see that the farmers "allowe one bushell in every quarter to be solde by the pecke and halffe-pecke to the poore at eightepence the bushell under the ordinarie price of the market[281]"; they are also to take care that the markets are well supplied with corn.

The Earl of Bath received letters concerning the high prices of corn at Barnstaple and "he with other justices came to town, viewed the market and set the price upon corn there, to wit wheat 9s., rye 6s., barley 5s., oats 2s., threatening the seller with duress if he sold for above that price[282]." Very little grain was to be had even at high prices, and a Mr Stanbury was deputed to go to London in order that he might help to purchase corn for the town. "God speed him well," writes Wyot, "that he may procure some corn for the inhabitants of this town in this time of scarcity, that there is but little cometh to the market and such snatching and catching for that little and such a cry that the like was never heard." Barnstaple was not, however, at the end of its troubles[283]; in 1597 wheat was sold at 15s. and 20s. the bushel, and many of the inhabitants must have starved.

The Archbishops of York and Canterbury issued letters to the bishops of their provinces with directions designed to mitigate the sufferings of the poor. The usual collections for their relief were to be carefully made and were to be increased. The wealthy were "to use a greater moderation than heretofore in their diet" and were not to lessen the number of their households. Not only was everyone to fast on Fridays, but they were to do without their suppers on Wednesdays also, "to the intent that that which is by forbearance of that meal and at other meals, by abstinency from all superfluous fare, fruitfully spared, may presently, especially by the wealthier sort, be charitably converted to the relief and comfort of the poor and needy." The ministers and churchwardens were to send monthly certificates of the observance of these orders with the names of any who were negligent[284]. We shall see that in Wakefield this Wednesday fast was observed and it is by no means improbable that these commands were actually enforced in other places.

The local authorities also endeavoured to remedy the evil. The proceedings of the Bristol Corporation illustrate the sudden rise in price and the great need there was for measures of relief. In 1594 the Mayor, Francis Knight, laid out money "to provide corn for the common sort of people," and by his means corn was brought from Danzig to Bristol. One of the aldermen also, a Mr Thomas Aldworth, spent £1200 in corn and brought a certain quantity into the market every day. Next year the scarcity continued, and in November a Mr Whitson was asked to buy corn for the Corporation. He did so and arranged that 3000 quarters of rye should arrive in May, 1596, and cost 28s. the quarter. But the Mayor alleged the corn was too dear and the Corporation would pay but half of Mr Whitson's charges to London and would only agree to buy half the rye. "But so it fell out, that when the said rye was arrived in Bristol, it was well worth 44s. a quarter and more. And then the said Mayor and Aldermen intreated to have the whole bargain and would pay Mr Whitson 50li. for his charges and running the adventure of the bargain, whereupon after some persuasion he (being of a good nature) consented." The corn was badly needed and within twenty days was sold at 6s. a bushel, though even that sum was under the market price. The Corporation gained £774 on the bargain and many pecks and half-pecks were given to the poor.

Still this corn lasted but twenty days, and during 1596 and 1597 corn was sold in Bristol at 7s., 8s., 12s., 16s., and according to one authority even 20s. a bushel. Under these circumstances the poor could not live, and it was decided by Mayor and Council that every alderman or any burgess, that had any property, should every day give one meal of meat to the poor people who were out of work. Some were to feed eight persons, and some only two, according to their ability. "Whereby," says the chronicler, "the poor of our city were all relieved and kept from starving or rising." The justices seem to have been vigilant in other directions also; they would allow no grain to be exported and ordered that very little malt should be made[285].

In London the difficulty was great: in 1594 Lord Howard sent up three ships laden with corn that the inhabitants might have bread, and in 1596 twenty ships carrying grain arrived from the Low Countries[286].

This grain may have been used for the whole country. An old chronicler of Shrewsbury relates that in 1596 "there was provision made by the bailiffs and aldermen of Shrewsburie with the commons for corne at London which cam from Dansicke, Denmark and those foren places to ease all England, and especially London. There was provided about 3,200 bushels for this town: it came by way of Brestow, and was sold to the commons after the rate of 8s. the bushell of rie, which was in the market at 12s. and better: and wheate at 14s. and 15s. Also there was prepared to be baked of the said rye 40 bushells weeakely by the towne bakers in peny bredd, two peny, three peny, and foure peny breed for the poore to have it who were not able to by any bigger portion. They were so unruly and gredie to have it, that the baylyffs, sixe men and other officers had mutche adoe to serve them. The God most mightie send plentie that his chosen flocke perrishe not, and dy for want as many in all contreis in England die and goe in great numbers myserably a begginge[287]."

It would appear that this kind of provision was usually made in large towns, for one of the charges in a complaint brought against two Newcastle aldermen was that of making no provision of corn for the poor. The complaint was addressed to the Privy Council by the discontented burgesses of the town of Newcastle and could hardly have been made unless it were generally recognised that it was one of their duties[288] to provide a store of this kind.

How great the distress in Newcastle was at this time may be gathered from the bare statements of the town accounts.

"Sept. 1597. Paide for the charges of buringe 9 poore folkes who died for wante in the streets, for their graves making 3s.

"Oct. 1597. Paid for the charge of buringe 16 poore folkes who died for wante in the strettes 6s. 8d.[289]."

If a few people actually died of starvation many must have been nearly starved.

All this indicates that the existing organisation for the relief of the poor could not stand the strain of the continued distress of these years. There were disturbances and complaints in many counties and a disposition to lay the blame on the increase of enclosed land. The Dean of Durham writes that the poverty of the country arises from decay of tillage owing to the number of enclosures. The poor this year could neither pay their landlords nor sow their corn, while many had to travel sixty miles to buy bread[290].

There was trouble too in making men obey the orders for the help of the poor. Some were punished for ingrossing corn or for converting cottages into tenements[291], while one man seems to have been rebellious altogether: "They are knaves ... my goodes are my nowne," he said, "they nor the queene nor the Councelle have to doe wi^th my goodes, I will doe what I liste w^th them." The Court of Star Chamber sentenced him to be fined £100, to be imprisoned, to wear papers, confessing his fault and "to be bound for his good abearing[292]."

From Dorset and Wilts we hear rumours of discontent[293], and in Oxfordshire and Norfolk there were actual insurrections. The Oxfordshire rebels themselves say that they rose because of the sufferings of the poor and the high price of corn. Although Sir William Spencer, one of the gentlemen who had enclosed land, reported that the rebellion was not begun by the poorer sort of people, Lord Norris wrote to the Council, "I want your commission and some order to be taken about enclosures on the western part of the shire where this stir began, that the poor may be able to live[294]." It is thus evident that poverty had something to do with the insurrection. One of the Norfolk rioters said he had heard that the poor were up in the west country, and that four or five of his neighbours would go to a justice of the peace and desire to have corn cheap; if they could not get it reasonably they would arise and get it by force, and if they did arise they would knock down the best first; "they stayed onlye butt for a drum[295]."

A letter from a Somersetshire justice, Mr Edward Hext, to Cecil gives a vivid picture of the disturbed state of Somerset. One hundred and eighty-three persons were to be set at liberty from the Sessions in the year 1596, "And of these very few came to any good; for none will receive them into service. And, in truth, work they will not, neither can they without most extreme pains, by reason their sinews are so benumbed and stiff through idleness that as their limbs being put to any hard labour, will grieve them above measure: so as they will rather hazard their lives, than work. And this I know to be true: for at such time as our Houses of Correction were up (which are put down in most parts of England, the more pity) I sent divers wandering suspicious persons to the House of Correction: and all in general would beseech me to send them rather to the gaol. And denying it them some confessed felony unto me; by which they hazarded their lives; to the end they would not be sent to the House of Correction, where they should be forced to work." He estimates that only the fifth person that commits a felony was brought to trial, for "most commonly the most simple country man and woman ... are of opinion that they would not procure any man's death for all the goods in the world." He thought the Egyptians were not so dangerous for there were only thirty or forty in the shire while there were three or four hundred sturdy rogues[296]. Mr Hext wrote in a time of famine when the poor were on the verge of starvation and when the west part of the neighbouring county of Oxfordshire was in insurrection.

This letter thus confirms the inference we should draw from the state of Oxfordshire, Norfolk, and Durham that on the whole the organisation for the relief of the poor was still insufficient. The public opinion of the time seems to recognise that there was a close connection between the bands of vagrants and the recent enclosures. Men like Lord Norris, the Dean of Durham, and Francis Bacon saw that if the agricultural changes were ultimately good for everyone, in the meantime they were bad for the poor; it was clear that many people had been without sufficient food, and the many insurrections of the time showed that this condition of things was dangerous to the peace of the country. The distress of these years thus brought vividly before men of the time the evils and the danger of the existing economic condition of the very poor, and the resulting awakening of public opinion was probably the chief factor in the creation of the better legislation and more efficient administration of later years.

A pamphlet written in 1597 by Henry Arth gives us considerable insight as to the contemporary ideas with regard to the relief of poverty, and also as to the extent to which the law was executed at the time[297]. The writer makes a list of the various classes included under the term "poor"; he uses the word to include those who require either relief or coercion from the public. He mentions both "such as are yong and lustie yet unwilling to labour," and "such as bee overcharged with children having nothing to maintaine them but their hand labour." It is in this sense that the word is most frequently used at the time. Arth goes on to enumerate the causes of poverty, the sins of the poor and the actions of the "poore makers." The poor were accused of idleness, wasting their goods in "bibbing and belly cheare," discontent and "seldome repairing to their parish churches to heare and learne their duties better." The sins of the "poore makers" throw more light on the economic changes of the time. Amongst these are mentioned the "importable oppression of many landlords," the "unconscionable extortion of all usurers," the "unsatiable covetousnesse in cornemongers," "the discharging of seruants and apprentices," and the "want of execution of good lawes and statutes." Magistrates fail to execute the laws, ministers fail to admonish them, and so "the most do live in disorder." But there are exceptions. The "strangers" in London "may be a patterne in these respects to all our English nation," for they keep all their fellow-countrymen from idleness and begging, and find work and wages for their unemployed. If any of them become poor "their state is imparted unto their company, and then commonly they abstaine one meale on the next Lordes day and give the price thereof towardes the parties maintenance." Moreover some well-disposed English people did their duty in the matter. In some districts a man "shall see not one begger asking any almes (except one or two that keepe the common box according to the order) to take the benevolence of trauellers and strangers so well are the statutes observed in those places."

Wakefield, where the writer lives, is one of these districts, "though the poore be many and needy yet thus much I may speak to my knowledge that if any be pinched with penurie the default especially resteth in themselves though some other persons can not be excused. For, (to the prayse of God bee it spoken) there is not onelie a house of correction according to the lawe, but withall, certain stockes of money put forth into honest clothiers' handes who are bounde with good sureties to set all the poore to worke, after five pence or sixe pence a pound of wooll spinning (as they shall deserve) if they will fetch it.

"For the impotent poore in every streete, they haue beene considered of (by the most able and forwarde men of that towne) and a generall ceassement voluntarie made for their supplie weekelie, which by confirmation of her Maiesties justices is still kept of euerie able householder, besides the Wednesdayes Suppers, for the which the Church-wardens take paynes accordingly, wherein if euerie one woulde discharge that dutie required of her Maiestie to let the poore haue the full benefite of their sayde suppers, there should not one person haue cause to begge there for all this deare yeare. As for the yonger sort, fitte to learne trades and occupations there is order taken to put them to apprentisshippe or otherwise to seruice."

From this pamphlet we see therefore that the law was sometimes well executed in particular places although as a rule it was negligently enforced. This view of the matter is confirmed by the rest of the evidence concerning the period from 1569 to 1597. It is the period of the growth of legislation and of the machinery of administration, but the working together of the whole system was also locally successful. At Reading, St Albans, Norwich, Leicester, York and Ipswich there is abundant evidence to show that many steps were taken to relieve the poor, while in Gloucester also we can see that increased action was taken in this direction, and that the statute of 1572 was more vigorously enforced than its predecessors. The City controlled the two hospitals of St Bartholomew and of St Margaret[298] and the corporation yearly elected a president, a treasurer, two surveyors, two almoners and two scrutineers to look after them. For certain years the accounts of Governor, Treasurer, Almoner and Scrutineer of St Bartholomew's still exist[299]. Before 1569 the house of the White Friars had been made into a House of Correction. For three parishes the accounts of the collectors of the poor exist for the years 1572-3 and for five other parishes for one or more of the succeeding ten years[300]. It would thus seem that the statute of 1572 was put regularly in execution in Gloucester and that this was the first statute that was thus regularly enforced.

There is comparatively little evidence during the period of the proceedings of justices of the peace in the country, but we have seen that Mr Sands in Parliament and the justices themselves in their report to the Privy Council tell us that in Worcestershire every man was relieved at his own home. We have also seen that several Houses of Correction had been established and that their value as part of the organisation was recognised. It is thus clear that in many places the local officials were being trained to their duties, and that the statutes were really put in execution, not completely or everywhere, but still to some extent and in many places[301].

In Parliament legislative experiments were still tried, and many of the men in Parliament, as justices of the peace or as members of the Privy Council, were obtaining experience of the practical working of the law. At the beginning of the period more stress was laid upon repression than upon relief. But the events of the years of scarcity brought home to the minds of most people the weakness occasioned by the partial execution of the existing system. In most places it could not stand the strain. The fact that the difficulties of the poor were partly due to enclosures and not only to the idleness of the sturdy vagrant was fully recognised. The danger of the distress of the poor was also apparent: some rose in insurrection, many others, like the Norfolk peasant, "stayed butt for a drum," all must have greatly suffered. Consequently the whole question was re-opened, a statute laying stress on relief was produced and a more efficient organisation was made possible. A system of public poor relief could not be suddenly established in a country like Elizabethan England. It had its basis in the recognised local custom of parochial collections, and the growing sense of municipal duty in the matter. Still, but for the development of the action of the Privy Council, but for the growing experience of members of Parliament, and but for the training of local officials and of the general public during these years, probably the conception, and certainly the execution, of the act of 1597 would have been impossible.