PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

1597-1644.

• 1. Characteristics of the period.
• 2. Legislation from 1597 to 1644.
• Administrative machinery.
• 3. Action of the Privy Council before 1629.
• 4. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the provision of corn.
• 5. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the unemployed.
• 6. The Book of Orders as a whole and the royal commission of 1630/1.
• 7. Interference with wages as a method of helping the poor.
• 8. Summary.

The years between 1597 and 1644 are in many respects a unique period in the history of English poor relief. A great deal of evidence exists, which seems to indicate, that in many places during some of these years the whole of the Elizabethan poor law was put in execution: that is, work was provided for the unemployed as well as relief for the impotent.

After the Civil War a part only of the system survived. There are thus grounds for believing that never since the days of Charles I. have we had either so much provision of work for the able-bodied or so complete a system of looking after the more needy classes when they were suffering from the effects of fire, pestilence and famine. For this reason alone the history of the poor at this period is especially interesting, and it is also at this time that the history of the poor is more directly connected than usual with the history of the nation as a whole.

We will trace as in the preceding periods the history of legislation and of the action of the Privy Council. But the relief of the poor is a matter which can only be efficiently administered by men who have a great knowledge of detail. The action of the Privy Council would have had very little effect unless there had been an efficient system of local government.

We will therefore examine the local machinery of administration as well as the central and will see what kind of work was done by judges, justices and overseers in regard to the relief of the poor. We shall then know who did the duties with regard to relief now performed by the Local Government Board, Boards of Guardians, magistrates, and relieving officers.

We must then regard the system of poor relief from another point of view and see what kind of relief could be obtained both in the country and in the towns by the different classes of poor. This will include the help afforded to the whole of the poorer population in years of scarcity as well as the means that were taken in ordinary times to pension the old, to train and maintain children, and to find work for the unemployed.

Lastly we will endeavour to determine when and where the administrative machinery was really set in motion and how far the relief afforded to the different classes of poor was given all over the country. The answer to these questions will enable us to see why it is that in England poor laws were not only made but administered, while in some other countries they were not administered even after they had been made.

The work accomplished with regard to the poor by Parliament was unimportant during the period from 1597 to 1644 but some slight changes were made in the law. It was in 1601 that the statute on which our system of poor relief has since rested was passed in its final form. This law, known as the 43 Eliz. c. 2, is often regarded as inaugurating new methods of dealing with the poor, but as a matter of fact few important legal enactments have initiated fewer innovations. It is simply a re-enactment with very slight alterations of the statute of 1597-8. The clause of the statute of 1597 which declared all beggars to be rogues if they asked for anything more than food was omitted in 1601, while the liability of parents to support their children, imposed in 1597, was in 1601 extended to grandparents also. Otherwise the slight differences between the two Acts consist chiefly of modifications of detail, designed to render certain doubtful points of law[302]. This statute of 1601 was itself only passed as a temporary measure but it was continued by the Parliaments both of James I. and of Charles I. It remained by far the most important regulation concerning the relief of the poor until the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834[303], and is in force as the basis of our system of Poor Relief at the present day.

In comparison with this statute all other legislation of the period on the subject is of small importance, but several additions were made to the law, and in four cases these contain provisions which supplement the system of relief ordered by the principal enactment of 1601. The first of these concerns maimed soldiers and was also passed in 1601[304]. The two former statutes on the subject, 35 Eliz. c. 4, and 39 Eliz. c. 21, were repealed, but the provisions of both of them were practically re-enacted. A County Treasurer was to be elected who was to pay pensions to those who had been wounded or maimed in the wars. The money was to be raised by a county rate levied on the parishes as formerly provided, but the amount that might be so raised was now increased to an average of sixpence weekly from every parish with a maximum of tenpence from the most highly rated parishes. Another enactment relating to the relief of the poor was the 43 Eliz. c. 4. This was likewise passed in 1601 and substantially re-enacts a statute of 1597 (39 Eliz. c. 6). It provides for inquiries into breaches of trust by means of writs directed by the Lord Chancellor to the bishop of the diocese. The list given of the kinds of charity affected shows how great and varied was the endowed almsgiving of the time. Some funds had been assigned for "reliefe of aged impotent and poore people; some for maintenance of sicke and maymed souldiers and marriners schooles of learninge, free schooles and schollers in Universities; some for repaire of bridges, portes, havens, causwaies, churches, sea bankes and highwaies; some for educacon and prefermente of orphans; some for or towardes reliefe, stocke or maintenance for howses of correccon; some for mariages of poore maides; some for supportacon, ayde and helpe of younge tradesmen, handicraftesmen and persons decayed; and others for reliefe or redemption of prisoners or captives and for aide or ease of any poore inhabitants concerninge paymente of fifteenes, settinge out of souldiers and other taxes[305]." In both years in which the great poor laws were passed, in 1597 and in 1601, a statute of this kind was authorised. The fact indicates that Parliament desired to maintain and strengthen the older voluntary system of charity in order that it might work concurrently with the newer organisation now growing up. A third measure relating to the relief of the poor was passed in 1603 and provided that a special rate might be levied for the sustenance of those infected with plague; the rate in this case was to be levied, not only from the parish but from the whole of the surrounding district[306].

But the fourth regulation of this kind is the most important. It was passed in 1609-10 and concerned the building of Houses of Correction. The Bill introduced on this subject in 1597 had been rejected after much dispute and discussion and in its place the statute "on rogues" had been hastily passed; this had repealed all the old regulations concerning Houses of Correction and although it gave the justices the power of levying a rate for the establishment of such institutions it had not compelled them to use the power. The law therefore on this point was much less exacting in its requirements than that which had previously been in force. The new enactment of 1609-10 therefore provided that one or more Houses of Correction must be erected within every county. It is here laid down that these houses were to be used to set "rogues or such other idle persons on worke," and no mention is made of the deserving unemployed[307]. This therefore probably marks the time when Houses of Correction ceased to be half workhouses and became very much more like gaols.

Thus while the law of 1601 is the basis on which relief was given during the period, additional provision was made during the next ten years for the assistance of maimed soldiers and of persons infected with plague, and for the building of Houses of Correction[308].

Before leaving the statutes it is perhaps worth while to notice the proviso that exists in so many of them in favour of John Dutton. The lord of Dutton claimed jurisdiction over the minstrels of Cheshire. In the reign of John, the Earl of Chester was imprisoned by the Welsh in Rhuddlan Castle. He sent for aid to Roger de Lacy then the Constable of Cheshire. It was the time of Chester fair. De Lacy collected a multitude of the shoemakers, fiddlers and loiterers who were in the town and with this force released the Earl. For this he obtained a grant for himself and his heirs of jurisdiction over minstrels and over disorderly characters in Cheshire. In 1216 this privilege was granted by John de Lacy to Hugh Dutton and remained in the hands of the lords of Dutton through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was the custom for the lord of Dutton to hold a Court at Chester on Midsummer day and in 1498 he received from the whole body of minstrels four flagons of wine and a lance with fourpence halfpenny from each of them. A Court of this kind was held as late as 1756[309]. In nearly all the statutes concerning vagabonds until that of 1822, the rights of John Dutton's heirs were preserved, so that in the seventeenth century the minstrels of Cheshire, licensed by the lord of Dutton, might wander without fear of the penalty inflicted on wanderers elsewhere,—a curious but direct consequence of an incident of border warfare in the early part of the thirteenth century. Few facts illustrate better both the continuity of English history and the toleration of anomalies by English law than this perpetuation of the quaint jurisdiction of the house of Dutton for more than six centuries.

Some of the legal handbooks throw considerable light on the way in which these statutes were interpreted. In the seventeenth century "The Countrey Justice" was one of the most popular of these books. The writer, Michael Dalton, defines the meaning of the term "poor." Like Arth, he divides the poor into three kinds, "the poore by impotency and defect," the "poore by casualty," and the "thriftlesse poore." This classification was common at the time and dates back to the reign of Edward VI. The "poore by impotency and defect" included the aged and decrepit, the orphan child, lunatic, blind or lame people, or those who were diseased. The term "poore by casualty" meant maimed people, householders who had lost their property owing to loss from "fire, water, robbery or suretiship, &c." and poor men "overcharged with children." Among the "thriftlesse poore" were included "the riotous and prodigall person that consumeth all with play or drinking," dissolute and slothful people, those who wilfully spoil their work, and vagabonds who will abide in no service or place. The "poore by impotency" were to be provided with enough to sustain them properly; the poor by casualty were to be "holden or set to work by the overseers," and further relieved according to their need, but the thriftless poor were to go to the House of Correction. None of these last, he says, are to have relief from the town for that "were a meanes to nourish them in their lewdnesse or idlenesse which take it, to rob others of releefe that want it, to wrong those of their money that pay it, and to condemn them of oversight which dispose it[310]."

So far the requirements of the law are similar to those of to-day, but some of Dalton's instructions remind us of the difference between the Elizabethan poor law and that of our own time. The poor law was originally part of a paternal system of government: gentlemen were ordered home to their estates, farmers were required to bring their corn to market, cloth manufacturers had to carry on their trade under well-defined regulations, and merchants were obliged to trade in the manner which was thought to conduce most to the good order and to the power of the nation. Workmen also were ordered to work whether they liked it or not, and, if the law were enforced, had to accept the wages fixed by the justices. Dalton therefore goes on to quote another clause of the poor law which has long fallen into disuse. The overseers were to set to work "all such persons (maried or unmaried) as having no meanes to maintaine them, use no ordinary and daily trade of life to get their living by[311]." If they refused the work appointed them they were to go to the House of Correction. Moreover those who refused to work for the wages commonly given and had not "lawfull meanes to live by" were not to be sent to the parish where they were legally settled but were to go to the House of Correction "upon consideration had of both the statutes of the poore and rogues[312]." Already any man between twelve and sixty who had not property and was not a skilled workman might be compelled to serve in husbandry by anyone who wanted a workman[313]. The poor law went a step farther. Not only might an employer require an unemployed workman to work for him but the overseers were obliged to see that he was employed. Occasionally something seems to have been done to put this clause of the statute into execution. Thus in a charge given to the overseers of a division in 1623, these officials were ordered to give the names of those refusing to work to the justices in order that the offenders might be sent to the House of Correction. Moreover they were also commanded "that uppon every Satturday at night or Sunday morninge they fayle not to enquire and take knowledge what labour and work they" (the workmen) "are provided of for the week followinge to the end that if any be unprovided of work they may [therewith] be supplied by the overseers who for that purpose are to enquire for worke for them and to provide materialls for the men that are olde and weake and for the women and children[314]." In other cases we hear of men being punished for "living idly," and maintaining themselves "none knowes howe[315]"; and one of the regular items in the reports returned to the Book of Orders of 1631 concerned the number who lived out of service[316]. The existence of this part of the law and its occasional enforcement reminds us that the poor law once formed part of an economic system entirely different from our own, in which not only paupers, but everyone had to do what the government commanded on conditions settled by authority.

We will now turn to the administration of the law and we will first see how this was influenced by the central government. This action of the central government is important. In London, in Worcester and in Norwich we have seen that the local administration was at one time successful, but it tended to become slack when its original founders in county or borough were followed by less vigorous successors. Without steady and continuous pressure from a central authority on the local officials it seems probable that in this period, as in the preceding century, the laws concerning the poor would never have been energetically executed in the greater part of England. It is this pressure that was supplied by the increased activity of the Privy Council.

We will first examine a few instances of the Council's action before 1629, and we will then trace its policy from 1629 to 1644.

Between 1597 and 1629 the orders in Council and royal proclamations do not differ greatly from those of the previous period; they still enforce indirect measures for the relief of the poor by means of an organisation for supplying the markets with corn and keeping the price more uniform. After 1597 however the orders which relate also to the ordinary relief of the poor by means of pensions for the old and work for the unemployed became of greater relative importance, and during the crisis of 1622-3 they were much better enforced.

Thus almost immediately after the passing of the poor law of 1597 efforts are made by the Council to secure its proper administration. On April 5th, 1598, a letter is sent by the Council to the High Sheriff and the justices of the peace in the several counties of England and Wales. The writers do not doubt that the Judges of the Assize have admonished the justices that special care must be taken to execute the laws for the relief of poorer people and maimed soldiers as well as the laws connected with vagabonds and tillage. "Nevertheless," they go on to say, "consideringe the remisseness that hath bin used generally by the justices of the peace in manie parts of the realm" they send a letter themselves directly to the justices and order that care be taken to see the new poor law "generally put into execution[317]." The writers order the justices when they meet in Quarter Sessions after Easter to take "speciall order amongst" themselves "for one strict and uniform course to be houlden for the due observinge and puttinge in execucon of the same lawes and statutes." They were also to meet from time to time and make the under officers give an account of their proceedings. This letter shows the Privy Council enforcing the whole of the ordinary administration of relief by exactly the same means that had formerly been used to enforce the measures concerning corn and vagrants in 1572 and 1586. It is the first time in which this interference seems primarily dictated by motives of humanity and not mainly by a desire to maintain order.

Again in 1603 during a time of plague proclamations were issued ordering the punishment of rogues, and the return of gentlemen to their homes, in order that they might relieve the poor by their ordinary hospitality and might take action for preventing the infection of the plague[318].

In 1608 a series of measures concern the supply of grain to the poor. In 1607 there had been serious disturbances in Northampton and elsewhere on account of enclosures. The harvest in 1608 was bad and the Council appear to have feared further disorder. They were careful to issue a book of orders containing regulations similar to the orders of 1587 and 1594. Two proclamations followed. The first commanded the careful execution of the Book of Orders and the return of gentlemen to their households[319]; the second prohibited the making of more malt than was necessary "in order that the poor may have sufficient store of barley to make bread for their sustenance at reasonable prices in this time of scarcity of wheat and rye[320]." In 1608, however, the price of barley was not much affected and the action of the Council was discontinued.

In 1621 to 1623 the sufferings of the poor were much more serious, and the measures of the Council concerned both the supply of corn and the direct relief of the poor.

As early as January 1619/20 a commission was drawn up for the due execution of the laws for the relief of the poor in almost exactly the same terms as that of January 1630/1[321]. Apparently the distress was then due chiefly to the beginning of a crisis in the cloth trade, for in May 1620 an inquiry was ordered into the decay of cloth-making in Wiltshire[322]. During the three following years the poverty of the poor increased.

The harvests of 1619 and 1620 had been exceptionally favourable, those of 1621 and 1622 were unusually bad[323]. In Somerset four or five hundred people assembled and took corn from those that carried it to market, and in many other parts of the country there were similar disturbances[324].

The Council adopted the usual methods; the Scarcity Book of Orders was amended and reissued, and two proclamations were drawn up ordering the restraint of maltsters and a reduction in the number of alehouses; the proclamation of October, 1622, expressly states that this was done because "barley is in time of scarcitie the bread-corne of the poore[325]."

Besides this the special commands addressed to the country gentlemen to return home were more emphatic than in former times, especially at Christmas in 1622. Their presence was necessary for two reasons. English gentlemen still kept great households and relieved many by their hospitality, and they also were expected to maintain order in their districts. They furnished information to the Government, arranged measures of relief for the poor and, if necessary, quelled and punished disorder. James I. had a great idea of their importance: he is credited with the remark to the effect that a country gentleman in town is like a ship at sea, which looks very small, while a country gentleman in the country is like a ship in a river, which looks very big. In 1622, therefore, two proclamations were issued ordering gentlemen to return to the country.

In the earlier of these one of the reasons for the regulation is stated to be because of "inconveniences which of necessity must ensue by the absence of those out of their countries upon whose care a great and principall part of the subordinate government of this realme doth depend[326]." In the second the king expressed his pleasure that so many had obeyed, and his displeasure with those who remained in London because he was "perswaded that by this way of reviving the laudable and ancient housekeeping of this realme the poore and such as are most pinched in times of scarcity and want will be much releeved and comforted[327]."

From a letter written in 1622 we find that the country gentlemen were by no means pleased at leaving the pleasures of Court; and "divers lords and personages of qualitie," we are told, "have made meanes to be dispensed w^thall for going into the countrie this Christmas according to the proclamation but yt will not be graunted, so that they packe away on all sides for feare of the worst, yet the L. Burghley hath found favor in regard of his father's age and weakenes[328]." The king was, however, firm in most cases, and not only issued the second proclamation in Dec. 22nd, 1622, but by a third in March 1623[329], continued the regulations, so that it is clear this measure was considered important and was found successful.

But in 1622-3 the orders of the Council do not only provide for the supply of the markets with corn. The poor were as much distressed by want of work as by the high price of bread. For some years there had been depression in the cloth trade, partly owing to the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, and partly to the small amount of coin which was in circulation in England. In 1622 the Spanish ports also were closed to English cloth. The merchants and manufacturers found that heavy stocks were on their hands and ceased to employ the workmen. As in 1527 and in 1586 the lords of the Council tried to remedy the evil by forcing the employers to find work for their men. In Feb. 1621/22 they sent to the justices of ten of the clothmaking counties. They say letters have been written to them setting forth the "decay of cloathing and the great distresse thereby fallen upon the weavers, spinners and ffullers in divers counties for want of worke." They recognise that so great a trade cannot always proceed with equal profit, but upon it the "livelihood of so many poore workmen and their families dependeth" that they let the justices know that they have taken a course with the merchants for the purchase of the cloths in the clothiers' hands, and "we hereby require yo^u," they write, "to call before yo^u such clothiers as yo^u shall thinke fitting and to deale effectually w^th them for the imployment of such weavers, spinners and other persons as are now out of worke. Where wee maye not omitt to let yo^u know that as wee have imployed o^r best endeavo^rs in favo^r of the clothiers both for the vent of their cloth and for moderation in the price of wooll (of w^ch wee hope they shall speedily find the effects). Soe may wee not indure that the cloathiers in that or any other countie should att their pleasure and w^thout giving knowledge hereof unto this Board, dismisse their workefoelkes, who being many in nomber and most of them of the poorer sort are in such cases likely by their clamo^rs to disturbe the quiet and governement of those parts wherein they live. And if there shalbe found greater numbers of poore people then the clothiers can reviue and imploy, Wee thinke it fitt and accordingly require yo^u to take order for putting the statute in execution, whereby there is provisione made in that behalfe by raising of publicke stockes for the imployment of such in that trade as want worke. Wherein if any clothier shall after sufficient warning refuse or neglect to appeare before yo^u or otherwise shall obstinately denie to yeeld to such overtures in this case as shalbe reasonable and iust, yo^u shall take good bonds of them for refusing to appeare before us and immediately certifie their names unto this board."

The Council also say the woolgrowers must sell their wool at a moderate price, and finish up with the statement of the general principle on which they act. "This being the rule," they say, "by w^ch both the woolgrower, the cloathier and merchant must be governed. That whosoever had a part of the gaine in profitable times since his Ma^ty happie raigne must now in the decay of Trade ... beare a part of the publicke losses as may best conduce to the good of the publicke and the maintenance of the generall trade[330]."

This high-handed proceeding on the part of the Government might have been successful if the slackness in trade had been of very short duration. But in this case the crisis continued, and the employers were soon in as bad a plight as their men. The Suffolk justices state that in twelve towns out of two hundred the manufacturers have lost over £30,000 by bankruptcies, and in twenty towns only have cloth unsold worth £39,282. The employers cannot employ the men in clothmaking, but the justices will do all they can to relieve the industrious poor[331]. The reply of the Gloucestershire justices is to much the same effect: they add that the people begin to steal and many are starving. The Judges of Assize also say they have interviewed the clothiers of Gloucestershire, and have persuaded them to keep on their men for a fortnight: they were utterly unable to do so for a month[332]. The harvest of 1622 was again a failure and the distress increased. In December the Council write to the justices of Suffolk and of Essex concerning some "disquiet likely to happen ... amongst the poor sort of people who wanting their usuall employm^t by reason of the badd vent of new draperies w^ch gives them their onely meanes of maintenance doe beginne to threaten unlawfull and disorderly courses to gett reliefe." They request the justices to use their best endeavours to maintain order and say that with "extraordinarie care" they have taken a course for the relief of those suffering from extreme need. Early in the year 1623 a series of relief measures were undertaken, possibly in accordance with the "course" settled upon by the Council. Special plans of selling corn to the poor under cost price were adopted, and efforts were made to find work for the unemployed. We shall examine the details of these reports later[333], and will now only notice that they indicate a great improvement in the execution of the poor law; they also record a good harvest for the early crops of 1623 and an improvement in trade early in the year[334].

This crisis of 1622 seems to mark a time of transition in the action of the Privy Council with regard to the poor. The Orders in Council were then more numerous and better enforced than those of any preceding period, though they were only continued for a short space of time, and seem to have ceased when the more pressing causes of disorder were removed.

Between 1629 and 1644 the interference of the Council is not confined to the years of scarcity but is continued for a long period of time. There are every year important entries concerning the poor in the Privy Council Register, and this fact seems to indicate that the attention of the Privy Council was thoroughly aroused, and that there was a determination to make the execution of the poor law a reality. The years 1629 to 1631 like those of 1621 to 1623 were years of high-priced corn and of a crisis in the cloth trade, and some of these Orders in Council in 1629-31 are of the same character as those of 1622-3. In 1631 however the interference of the Council is better organised than before and is continued until the outbreak of the Civil War. We will first enumerate a few of the measures relating to grain.

The first proceeding of the Government was to forbid the transportation of corn out of the country. In 1629 and 1631 proclamations were issued to this effect[335]. In 1630 the export of beer also was forbidden[336], so as to husband the barley as much as possible. The restrictions were extended to Ireland, a survey was ordered of the quantities of grain there, and it was found that there was a very good harvest. Exportation to foreign countries was prohibited, licenses already granted were revoked, and all corn not needed for Ireland was to be brought to England[337].

At one time, moreover, an attempt was made to limit the export from county to county and to regulate the supply by means of licenses. Thus the bakers of London were to have the right of purchase for twenty miles round the City; Bristol had special license to buy in other markets and import by sea. Gloucester, Exeter, and London were allowed to buy in Cornwall, Tewkesbury in Pembroke, Carmarthen and Portsmouth in the Isle of Wight[338]. But this system of licensing proved insufficient, and in April 1631 the justices of the home counties received general orders to remember that the transport of corn from one shire into another was not forbidden[339]. The Government then recurred to the Books of Orders which were drawn up in 1587, and had been re-enforced in every season of scarcity since that time. In Sept. 1630 these orders were amended and reissued by Charles I.[340]; it is to this Book of Orders that the corn reports of the justices refer[341]. These Orders we have seen work through the justices, and require justices' reports. In fact they establish the organisation for the provision of corn that was afterwards used for the relief of the poor.

One other method of the central Government is perhaps worth noting. Other laws connected with the poor were enforced, such as those relating to the suppression of beggars and the labour laws. But these times of famine were especially the times when inquiries were made about enclosures. The enclosing of land necessarily excited opposition when there was not corn enough. There were riots in Northampton and in other places in 1607-8, and in 1631 "a large number of rebels" pulled down fences in Braydon Forest[342]. A great inquiry was made into the whole subject in 1609, and in 1631 also the justices return a few special reports upon enclosures, and sometimes make their answer a part of the report concerning the poor. In Appletree, Derby, very little land had been lately enclosed "for that the greatest parte of this hundred hath been enclosed long since[343]," but in other cases a few new fences had been erected[344]. There is enough to show that even in 1631 enclosures continued to be made and continued to excite the old opposition.

Thus the Council in 1629-30 endeavoured to minimise the amount of grain consumed, to secure a proper supply for the markets, and to see that all laws designed to benefit the poor were rigorously enforced. These measures are of much the same character as those of the sixteenth century, but the orders are much more detailed and much stronger in the parts designed to secure efficient administration. They were better administered, and in the reports sent in by the justices we can see a marked improvement, and signs that the organisation which broke down in the sixteenth century was successful in the seventeenth.

But after 1629 the Orders of Council relate to many other methods of relieving the poor. Some concern provision for the unemployed poor, others deal with the Royal commission and Book of Orders of 1631, and a few have reference to interference with wages undertaken by the Government with the object of relieving distress.

The want of employment in the cloth-making counties again became a serious difficulty at the beginning of the year 1629. It was partly connected with political troubles; the merchants refused to pass their goods through the Custom House in order to avoid paying exactions which they regarded as illegal. The clothiers therefore could not sell their cloths or continue to employ their workmen. Pressure on employers and merchants was a not infrequent way of helping the poor. The Council sent for the London merchants and thought they had persuaded them to buy the unsold cloths[345], but apparently the merchants drew back; in any case "divers merchant strangers and denizens" were summoned, and on May 12th they are said to be "inclined" to buy the "bayes made at Braintree, Bocking, and Coxall[346]." The privileges possessed by the Merchant Adventurers for the export of cloth enabled the Council to put especial pressure on the merchants when cloth was concerned. The threat had only to be made that the trade would be thrown open to foreign traders and the London merchants had to choose between competition from rivals or the loss involved in buying the stocks in the manufacturers' hands. In 1637 there was again depression in the cloth trade, and again the Merchant Adventurers were told that the trade would be thrown open if they did not buy the cloths[347]. Moreover one of the last acts connected with the poor enforced by the personal government of Charles I. was of the same kind. At the outbreak of the Civil War the clothing trade was the first to suffer, clothmakers all over the country petitioned the king for help, and one of the few resolutions of the Privy Council entered between 1640 and 1645 was that the cloth trade should be thrown open to relieve the distress, and free license to export be allowed at those seaport towns that remained faithful to the king[348].

But this was only one of the methods in which the Council tried to aid the makers of cloth. Special orders were sent to the justices of Essex to cause adjoining parishes to help the districts where cloth was made, because these parishes were more charged with poor than the rest of the county[349]. Early in May, 1629, directions were given to the Deputy-Lieutenants as well as to the justices of Essex and Suffolk commanding them to see all possible measures were taken to restore order and relieve the poor. It was especially stated that the clothworkers were to be provided with work either in their own trade or in some other good and honest labour, and if that were impossible they were to be otherwise relieved[350].

Already the difficulty was not confined to the eastern counties, and on May 17th, 1629, a proclamation was issued entitled, "A Proclamation commanding the due execution of the Lawes made for setting the poore on work." The regulations for "the reliefe of the indigent and impotent poore, for binding out apprentices, for providing of stockes[351], and for setting the poore on worke," were to be "duely and carefully put in execution." The liability of the parish to provide funds, and afterwards of the hundred and of the county is recapitulated, and means are devised by which the duty may be performed. The "minister, churchwardens and overseers for the poore" were straightway to meet and take these matters into their consideration. They were then to report to the justices of the peace. These latter were to consult together in their several divisions, and at Quarter Sessions the necessary arrangements were to be settled. The judges on their circuits were to find out what had been done and were to make an exact report. Thus the Central Authority set in motion the whole local machinery for the execution of the poor law. The proclamation further ordered that great care should be taken in those places where there either was or should be any special occasion "to provide stocks to set the poor on work[352]."

Some of the justices seem to have doubted whether they had legal power to themselves levy a rate for providing employment for the poor. A few days after the proclamation therefore a further letter is sent to the Deputy-Lieutenants and justices of Essex and Suffolk stating that in their part of the country there was special need for care in matters concerning the poor, and therefore the writers again particularly remind them of their duty and let them know "that it is the resolucon of all the judges that by the lawe yo^u have sufficient power and ought to raise meanes out of the severall parishes if they be of abilitie, or otherwise in their defect in their severall hundrethes etc. to sett the poore on worke and to relieve the aged and impotent not able to worke[353]."

Another crisis of the same kind occurred in 1639 near the end of the personal government of Charles I. The same methods are employed; it is the western counties that are suffering most, and letters are written to the justices of Devon and of Exeter urging them to make special efforts to remove the more pressing necessities of the poor ordinarily employed in the cloth trade[354].

Thus we see that during this period the Council put pressure on merchants in order that manufacturers might give their men work; a proclamation was drawn up by its advice giving strict orders for the relief and employment of the poor all over the country; and it insisted in several different ways that in the districts most affected work should be found and relief given. We can see by the circumstances of this crisis something of the nature of the difficulty which the Stuart statesmen had to meet. The social organisation was based on the assumption that the conditions were fairly stable; a poor man had the greatest difficulty, as we have seen[355], in going from one part of the country to another, and the apprenticeship laws were fitfully if not rigorously enforced, so that, if a man's own trade failed, there was little prospect of employment in another. In our own time a sudden falling off in trade causes great hardship to the workmen, and in the seventeenth century the hardship was thus far greater. The demand for manufactured goods was essentially unstable; the social organisation was based on an underlying assumption that work was stable. The introduction of manufactures would therefore cause peculiar hardship to the poor employed in them, if exceptional measures of this kind could not be enforced.

There are several other references in the succeeding years which refer chiefly or wholly to the action of the Council in enforcing provision of work for the unemployed[356]. But after January 1631, regulations of this kind formed part of the Book of Orders of that date, and the Register of the Council, so far as it concerns the poor, relates chiefly to the Royal commission, then just appointed, or to the enforcement of the Book of Orders as a whole.

As early as June, 1630, a special committee of the Council itself had been appointed commissioners for the poor[357], but in January in the next year a further step was taken and a commission was issued to the chief people in the country. The minutes of a few of its meetings have been preserved, but these relate mainly to an inquiry into the administration of Mr Kendrick's charity at Reading[358]. Its influence seems to have been very considerable, but to have been exerted not so much through the proceedings of the commission as a whole as through the appointment of local committees, and through the delegation of its powers for administrative purposes to various sub-committees. It had the power to ask for the appointment of local commissions, and it was in this way that it could most effectively deal with abuses in any particular district. Thus if there was a complaint of great distress or if charitable funds were not properly applied, a local commission was suggested. Such commissions were granted for Bury, Exeter, Colchester, for the parishes in and about London, and for Stamford in county Lincoln[359], and would be a terror to evildoers in matters of charitable endowments.

But the commissioners not only delegated their powers by means of local commissions. For administrative purposes they divided themselves into groups, each consisting of six or seven commissioners. One of these sub-committees was attached to the counties of each circuit. Thus Wentworth was amongst those especially responsible for the Northern Circuit; Laud and Coke were assigned to that of Lincoln; Dorchester, Falkland and Bridgwater to the district round Shropshire; Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Wimbledon to Kent; the Earl of Holland to Norfolk, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the west country[360]. This division would immensely increase the administrative usefulness of the commissioners and was adopted immediately before the issue of the Book of Orders. It was therefore most probably connected with the system then established, and designed to enable the commissioners to bring their influence to bear on the judges, and through them on every justice in the county.

The Book of Orders was issued in January 1630/1. It is the most important of the measures connected with the poor enforced by the Privy Council. It was not the only document of the kind. We have seen that a Book of Orders for the prevention of scarcity was issued in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and was amended and re-issued in the reigns of James and Charles. This method of issuing a Book of Orders was now adopted for the relief of the poor at all times and not only in years of scarcity.

The Orders begin by stating that many excellent laws were in existence both for the relief of the poor and for the proper employment of charitable endowments; these for a short time after the making of the laws were duly executed, and that in some parts of the kingdom "where some justices of the peace and other magistrates doe duely and diligently execute the same, there evidently appeareth great reformation, benefit, and safety to redound to the Commonwealth." But they also inform us that in other parts of the realm there was now great neglect, and that these orders were therefore necessary. The orders and the directions were given separately; the directions order the enforcement of the regulations of the statutes such as those for the repression of beggary, the binding of apprentices, and the provision of both work and relief. They especially command energy in the matter within the jurisdictions of lords and at the Courts leet. Only two of them impose new regulations. One orders that the Correction houses in all counties should be made next to the gaol; the other has especial reference to the time of scarcity; rates were to be raised in every parish, and contributions were to be given by the richer parishes to help the poorer ones, "especially from those places where depopulations have beene, some good contribution to come for helpe of other parishes."

Eight Orders precede the directions; they prescribe the method of administration rather than what was to be administered, and it was this that was most important. The justices of every shire were to divide themselves so that certain of them were responsible for particular hundreds. They were to hold monthly meetings and to meet the constables, churchwardens, and overseers. From these they were to inquire what measures they had taken in every parish and to hear who were the offenders against the laws. The justices were to punish neglect, and were themselves to report every three months to the sheriff. The reports were to be sent on to the Judges of Assize, and from them to the Lords Commissioners, some of whom, as we have seen, were especially responsible for every circuit. The Judges of Assize were particularly to inquire which justices were negligent[361] and to make a report to the king.

It is not difficult to see that these Orders would greatly help the general administration of the law. Some trouble was found in executing them, but the Book of Orders formed the basis of the organisation for the relief of the poor for the years between 1631 and 1640. In April, 1632, we are told that much good has been done, but there are now signs of slackness. All the justices are to do their best and to make certificates to the judges[362]. In October 1633 the returns had not been so well made, and the judges were asked to find out what justices were remiss[363]. In May 1635 a letter was sent to the judges stating that many times they had received charge to see the Book of Orders put in execution. Still in most places the justices have been exceedingly negligent, and the judges are ordered to insist on their doing their work and returning their certificates[364]. The effect of the Book of Orders we shall be more easily able to estimate later, but we can see from the entries made in these minutes of the Council itself how energetically its members tried to see that their directions were enforced.

Many regulations were made about particular places in time of plague, but to some extent this had been done in the reign of Elizabeth and it is not a new development in the policy of the Council. It will be sufficient to notice that frequent resolutions were passed on the subject, particularly in 1636, 1637, and 1638, and that many of these decisions take for granted a fairly efficient organisation for the relief of the poor in ordinary times[365]. We shall have to consider these measures more in detail when we examine the provision made for the poor in time of sickness.[366]

There are also several examples of the interference of the Council with wages with the object of relieving the poor. We have seen that in 1629 the cloth trade was depressed, and that the Lords of the Council endeavoured to insist that work and relief should be provided for the workmen out of employment. At the same time they also made efforts on behalf of those who were still employed. In July, 1629, they wrote to the Earl of Warwick and justices of Essex concerning the weavers of baize in the neighbourhood of Bocking and Braintree. Wages were already low, and the men hardly able to live by their labour, yet the employers were trying to force their workmen to make a greater length of cloth for the same wages. "Wee thinke it very fit and just," write the members of the Council, "that they (the weavers) should receive such payment for their worke as in reason ought to be given according to the proportion thereof and also that the said Bayes which are woven in the saide countie are to be made of one length[367]."

In February, 1631, the weavers of Sudbury complained; a petition to the Council was presented on behalf of Sylva Harbert and others, saying the "poore spinsters, weavers and combers of wooll" were "much abridged of their former and usuall wages" by the clothiers, "who are now growne rich by the labours of the said poore people." The matter was referred to a committee with instructions to cause "orderly payment" to be made of the "due and accustomed wages.... And in case any particular person shalbe found either out of the hardnes of his harte towards the poore or out of private end or humo^r refractory to such courses as the said com^rs shall thinke reasonable and iust" he shall be ordered to appear before the board[368].

The employers stated that all of the trade had reduced wages, but that, if a general rule were made binding on all the employers, they would be willing to agree to give any wages which were thought reasonable[369]. A rate was fixed by an Order in Council, but the decision was not obeyed. Lawsuits were brought by clothier against clothier, until another attempt was made to settle the matter, and in 1636 Charles I. issued Letters Patent fixing the length of the reel and ordering that the wages of all the workpeople should be raised in proportion[370].

It is evident, then, that in 1629 the masters of Braintree and Booking were trying to take advantage of the competition of their workmen to force down wages, and that in this particular trade both then and afterwards the Council tried to prevent anything of the kind being done.

A bad harvest in 1629, followed by a worse in 1630, plunged not only the clothworkers but the whole labouring class into distress. Amongst many other measures calculated to relieve this scarcity the Council again interfered with wages in order to aid the whole body of workmen.

Wages had been legally fixed by law in various ways since the middle of the fourteenth century, and in 1563 it had been provided that the justices of the peace should every year fix the scale of wages according to the prices of food, and other conditions of the workmen. It has been generally considered that these assessments were either ineffectual or were enforced in the interest of the employers and not that of the employed. But on September 29th, 1630, the Council ordered four letters to be written, directed to the justices of the peace of Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to the mayor of Norwich, the contents of which clearly show that in this instance the Council interfered with the object of helping the poor. The people themselves had complained that the rates had not been properly made for them according to law; the Council thereupon write down to the justices and say that "these hard and necessitus tymes doe require some better care to be had in that behalfe; we have therefore thought good at this time to recommend the same to yo^r extraordinarie care. For the statutes of 5 Eliz. and 1 Jac. having so carefully provided against these inconveniences, it were a great shame if for want of due care in such as are speciallie trusted with the execution of these lawes, the poore should be pinched in theise times of scarcitie and dearth. And his Mat^ie and this Board cannot but be exceeding sensible of any neglect or omission which may occasion such evill effects, as are like to ensue thereupon. And therefore since neither you nor any other can pretend any want of legall power to have prevented all just cause of complainte in this kinde wee doe hereby in his Mat^ies name will and require you to use such care and diligence that his Mat^ie and this Board may not be troubled with any complaint for want of due execution of the aforesaid statute. And so etc.[371]"

The fact that the men complained and that the Council so promptly interfered in this matter is a strong argument that both the workmen and the members of the Council believed that the assessments were enforced, or at least that they had a great influence on the wages actually paid. The occurrence certainly shows us that in this instance the assessments were ordered to be made in the interests not of the masters but of the men, and that it was the intention of the Government to protect the men from oppression. It suggests that the justices were negligent, but it brings into prominence the fact that the justices were supervised by the Privy Council.

There is reason for believing that the determination here shown by the Council to help the poor had considerable weight in inducing the justices to make the wages assessments of the time. It was probably an immediate consequence of this letter that the Norwich justices drew up a new assessment, and reported the fact to the Council in Dec. 1630[372]. Moreover a very large proportion of the other assessments which have been preserved of the reigns of James and Charles belong to the years of scarcity, when the relief of the poor was the main object of the justices[373]. As money wages were rising throughout the century, new assessments were always in favour of the workman and would become most necessary in times when the price of food was high; they would also most readily be made when the necessities of the poor were great.

It is perhaps worth while to notice one other instance of protection given to workmen by the Privy Council. During another time of trade depression, in the year 1637, Thomas Reignolds, manufacturer, made his workmen accept cloth instead of money for their wages. The men complained; the Council found it was a second offence and ordered Thomas Reignolds to be sent to the Fleet until he had paid his workmen double the amount they had lost, and their charges for bringing the complaint besides[374]. The punishment for truck inflicted by the Privy Council during the personal government of Charles I. was certainly severe.

Thus in the period from 1597 to 1644 the Privy Council are increasingly active on behalf of the poor, and during eleven of these years, from 1629 to 1640, they adopt a policy of constantly exerting influence to secure the proper administration of the poor laws. This continuous policy seems to be suggested by the exceptional measures which had formerly been adopted in years of scarcity. In every season of high-price corn since 1527 some action of this kind was taken, and every exceptionally bad time of distress increased the extent of governmental interference. The continuous policy adopted between 1629 and 1640 began with a failure of harvest and crisis in the cloth trade, and the earlier methods of the Government were like those of 1597 and 1622. But while the season of scarcity still continued the Privy Council issued the Book of Orders for the relief of the poor, and the organisation begun by these commands was continued throughout the period of personal government.

Abbot and Laud, Wentworth and Falkland, Dorchester and Wimbledon are the members of the Privy Council whose names are most closely connected with this policy. Its effects and success we shall be better able to estimate later, but we can already see that the system which the Privy Council tried to enforce was considerably more extensive than any organisation of poor relief with which we are familiar. Already we know that the poor were not only looked after in times of bad harvests, as in the sixteenth century, but they were also sometimes employed when they were out of work, and that, not only when an individual was unfortunate, but when whole classes were suffering from a fluctuation in trade. This certainly could not always be carried out, but the Council insisted that it should be attempted. The personal government of Charles I. has been more associated with the exaction of Ship Money than with attempts to enforce a system which has much in common with the socialistic schemes with which we are familiar on paper, and yet these eleven years are remarkable for more continuous efforts to enforce socialistic measures than has been made by the central Government of any other great European country. Apart from its success or failure the attempt is interesting, because it shows us the ideal of government which was in the minds of Charles I. and his advisers, and reminds us that these infringers of individual liberties were also, in intention at least, the protectors of the poor.