1597-1644.

METHODS OF RELIEF.

A. In Times of Emergency.

• § 1. The methods in which the Scarcity Orders of the Privy Council were executed in 1623 and 1630-1.
• a. The suppression of alehouses and restrictions of malting.
• b. The regulations for serving the markets with corn and supplying the poor in their homes.
• c. Selling corn bought by the inhabitants to the labourers under the market price.
• d. Other special methods of providing food for the poor.
• § 2. Evidence as to the success or failure of the corn regulations.
• § 3. Reasons for their adoption.
• § 4. Bearing of the scarcity measures on history of poor relief.
• a. Growth of organisation.
• b. The standard of life of the poorer classes.
• § 5. Provision of fuel for the poor in winter.
• § 6. Help afforded in times of sickness or plague.
• § 7. Contributions to sufferers from fire.
• § 8. Two characteristics of seventeenth century poor relief accentuated by this emergency relief.
• a. Little distinction between paupers and non-paupers.
• b. Little distinction between relief afforded by voluntary contributions and that provided by poor rates.

The special emergencies in which the poor most often obtained relief in the seventeenth century were those arising from bad harvests, sickness, and fire.

We will first examine the methods of supplying the poor with corn after bad harvests. We have already seen that in 1608, 1621-3, and 1629-31 the central government issued orders with this object, which closely resembled the commands which had been issued during the reign of Elizabeth. We have now to see how these orders were executed in the early part of the seventeenth century.

In 1608 there is little evidence in this direction. A report however was sent from Colchester. There, the constables took an account of the number of persons that had corn by them; of the bargains they had made and of the number of acres they had sown, and in accordance with that survey every person was ordered to bring weekly to market so many bushels of corn unless they had already sold them to poor artificers and day labourers[421]. There were probably like reports from other places but there is nothing to make us think that the scarcity Book of Orders was better executed in 1608 than it had been in 1587 or 1597.

But in 1623 and in 1630-31 there are returns from many different parts of the country, and these seem to show that the orders which were occasionally put in force under Elizabeth were frequently put in force under James I., and were usually well executed in the season of scarcity in the reign of Charles I.

The Book of Orders issued in each period of scarcity contained directions for limiting the quantity of malt and for suppressing unnecessary alehouses. This was the case because barley bread was the chief food of the poor, and they would be more easily able to obtain a supply if the barley which would have been used for malt was brought to the markets. The corn reports of 1623 and 1630-1 for the most part state in general terms that these directions had been carried out[422]. Moreover sometimes the justices enter into details and show that they had taken great care in putting this part of the Council's orders into execution. Thus in 1623 the number of alehouses in Banbury was reduced by one-third, in Ripon by a half, while in Wycombe only nine were licensed out of twenty-one[423]. In April 1631 also in Bradford, in Hertford, and in Stafford more than half the alehouses were suppressed[424].

Similar details show us that the making of malt was carefully regulated. In 1623 the justices of South Hampshire fixed the total quantity of barley that might be used for this purpose in the county and allotted a definite quantity to each division: a hundred quarters were allotted to each of the divisions of Andover and Fawley, eighty quarters to that of Alton, and in proportion to the other divisions[425]. At other times malting was suppressed altogether, as in three hundreds of Herefordshire in 1623[426] and at Taunton in 1631[427].

Occasionally malting was continued by some of the maltsters, but in order to counterbalance the injury to the poor they contributed in some special way to their support. Thus at Warwick in 1623 the maltsters brought corn to market and sold at a shilling a bushel under the market price to the poorer people, while at Stafford in 1631 the maltsters who had continued their trade in the town agreed to contribute a specified sum to the support of the poor in several of the surrounding country districts[428]. At Norwich some of the maltsters were disobedient, and they were there ordered as a punishment to bring corn to the public granary and sell it at low rates to the poor[429]. It is thus clear that this regulation of the consumption of ale was made in the interests of the poor, and that it was carefully executed in 1623 and 1631.

As in 1586 and in 1597 elaborate surveys of the quantities of corn possessed by each owner were made both in 1623 and 1630-1, and in accordance with these surveys the farmers were ordered to bring a proportional amount of their produce to market[430]. Moreover in 1623 and in 1631 increased attention was paid to the difficulties experienced by the labourers who had not sufficient leisure to come to market for the small quantities they were able to buy at a time. In Babergh and Cosford and in Thingoe in 1623, arrangements were made for their supply at home[431]. In 1631 more organised plans were adopted. At Lewes a survey was made of the quantity of corn available and a reasonable proportion was then allotted to each householder: out of the residue the poor of every parish were to have enough to serve them, while any that was then left over was to be sent to market[432]: in the lath of Shepway two-thirds of the corn was sold to poor artificers at home, while only one-third was brought to market and there sold to the poor or to anyone who wanted to buy for his own consumption[433].

But in some respects the corn measures of 1623 and 1631 were not only better executed but provided more direct relief than those of former times. We know that the town rulers in 1586 and 1597 bought particular quantities of corn for the inhabitants[434], and that individual owners like the Duke of Rutland sold their corn under price. The reports of 1623 and 1630-1 indicate a great extension of this practice both in London, in other corporate towns, and in the country.

Even before 1520 the City rulers possessed a magazine of corn. In 1622 a regular system of selling to the poor under price was so much the usual plan that the Lords of the Privy Council complained of the method by which the Companies furnished their quota of corn for this purpose. Each Company contracted with the bakers to furnish the quantity required from its members. The wardens however were told that this course "would rather lessen the stoare than replenish the markett"; they must import for themselves from abroad so that the total supply in the City might be increased[435]. In 1630-1 even more vigorous methods were taken. The population of London was numbered, so that it was found that there were 130,280 people in the City, and the Lord Mayor calculated that five thousand quarters a month would be necessary to provide for all the inhabitants[436]. Each Company had to provide a certain quantity at under rates for the poor and was required to state how much of this supply they had in their granaries[437]. The efforts made to lower the price were for a time successful, and in December 1630 the Lord Mayor ordered the price of meal to be reduced in proportion to the fall in the price of grain[438].

In other large towns similar plans were adopted both in 1621-1623 and in 1629-1631. In 1623 the Bailiffs of Derby report "wee have alsoe at the charge of the cheife and ablest inhabitants of this Burrowe provided 140 q^ters of corne w^ch wee weekely afford to the poore as their necessities require under the comon price of the markett[439]." In the later period, 1630 and 1631, Norwich spent £300 for this purpose and then borrowed more; Great Yarmouth, Leicester and Buckingham made similar provision[440]. There is no reason to think these towns were exceptional; there are comparatively few reports from the corporate towns in 1630 but we have already seen that in Bristol and Shrewsbury stores had been bought in earlier years, and their action was probably similar now to that of London and Norwich.

The same plan was also adopted in the country. It was recommended by the Council, but it is not one of the fixed regulations enforced by them. In one case however we find that a small sum of money had been collected for a magazine of corn in Suffolk, and that now the Council ordered it to be used to supply the poor of Halesworth[441].

In many other cases corn was provided by the inhabitants themselves often by voluntary agreement made under the persuasion of the justices. In 1623 this method of helping the poor was usual in Hertfordshire. In March the Sheriff sends to the Council reports from the justices of the greater part of the country. He states that the justices and gentlemen have "by there good and charitable exsamples and perswasiones" provided a quantity of corn at nearly half the market price in "euery parish where neede requireth." There was enough to last until next harvest and they hope "noe complainte of the pore shall hereafter add any disturbance unto his Ma^ti's most graciouse pittifull, and charitable minde[442]."

In districts of Devonshire and Suffolk[443] also like plans were tried in 1623, while in 1631 similar methods of relief seem to have been universal in the counties of Essex and Norfolk, and to have been adopted in some districts in almost every eastern county.

Thus in December 1630 in four of the hundreds of Essex arrangements were made for supplying the people with corn at home. The chief inhabitants "of theire owne accords" laid in a store for the poor allowing 7d., 18d. or 2s. the bushel and giving an equivalent amount in money to those that did not bake their own bread[444]. Next month we hear that this plan had been adopted in most of the shire; every parish had its store and the poor were served at 18d. and 2s. a bushel under the usual price. Sometimes when grain was scarce, bread and money were given instead. Our informant states that this provision of corn for the poor at cheap rates had had a considerable effect in lowering the price of grain[445]. From every hundred of Norfolk a report of the state of the corn supply of the poor was received, and some arrangement of this kind is usually reported. In some hundreds two degrees of poverty were recognised. The very poor only paid half-a-crown a bushel for their barley, but "the labourers y^t had nott so much neede" were served at three shillings[446].

This plan does not seem to have been general in Yorkshire, but it was adopted by at least eight hundreds[447]. There are moreover many examples of stores of this kind in Hertfordshire and some in every Eastern county except Northumberland and Lincolnshire[448]. The fact that special mention is made of poor labourers shows that relief was not confined to the disabled or to paupers. It was given in the eastern counties more than in the western probably because the scarcity was more felt in the east and the poor were in greater distress[449].

Sometimes other plans were adopted. The owners and dealers of corn were expected to contribute to the need of their less fortunate neighbours. At Reading the corn masters set apart a sack in every load to serve for the poor at twelvepence a bushel under the market rate[450]. It would seem that some allowance was usually made by dealers in corn, for another dealer who was a victim of a riot at Woodchurch states that out of ten quarters he left five to be sold to the poor[451].

Other expedients of this kind were adopted; in Devonshire the children of the poor were billetted on those able to give relief[452], and at Maidstone the town baked the bread and gave loaves to the day labourers and poorest inhabitants[453]. Three of the hundreds of Cambridgeshire tried a still more organised plan: "the poorer sort had weekly corne delivered to them at home at twelvepence in the bushell in the least under the market prices[454]."

We have very varied opinions as to the success or failure of the organisation for supplying the poor with corn. The justices in several instances state that the search raised prices, and ask that a second search may not be made[455]. In a few cases they say the regulation of the markets was injurious. The most decided of these is an account from Edwinstree and Odsey, "And we humbly conceaue that o^r strickt lookeing to the marketts by o^rselves and others, very sufficient and diligent supervis^ors, whom we haue imploied w^th a great deale of care in these businesses is an occacion that the marketts are the smaller, the corne dearer and new shifts and devises are found out[456]." In the autumn of 1631 inquiries as to the cause of the scarcity were instituted, and the Bridport authorities candidly replied that it was owing to the interference of the justices[457]. But perhaps the most interesting protest is that from Chipping Wycombe. It was a town on the borders of Buckinghamshire, which was largely inhabited by dealers in corn and was the market for the neighbouring parts of Oxfordshire and Berkshire. After the instructions of the Privy Council had been followed, only a quarter of the usual quantity was brought to the market. The dealers, the Mayor tells us, lost heavily because the price of meal had been fixed by the Lord Mayor, and both they and the farmers were disgusted at the lowering of prices in other parts of the country. Formerly the badgers had set aside sacks for the poor, and the farmers and others had provided stores for them. This they now refused to do, but the justices did their best and themselves sold to the poor under the market rates[458]. The dislike of the orders is very apparent in this report, but it bears witness to the fact that they were sometimes successful, since prices had been lowered in consequence in other parts of the country. But as Chipping Wycombe was inhabited largely by corn-dealers, and as it drew its supplies from other counties, the orders failed there, and the fact that Chipping Wycombe was such a town may have been not without its influence on the making of history, for John Hampden, we are told, was one of the justices present who witnessed the distress of this disastrous market-day. It was not a position in which he would judge favourably of the effects of governmental interference.

Still the balance of evidence is in favour of the orders. When they were first put in force they seem to have had a considerable effect in lowering the price. Many of the reports sent in during the last half of December and beginning of January tell us that this was the case[459], though after the beginning of the year prices again rose, because the corn was wanted for seed as well as for food. However even as late as April 30th a report from the district of Horncastle in Lincolnshire informs us that the writers have ordered the markets to be furnished every week with a particular quantity, and that the price of oatmeal, which was the chief food of the poor in that part of the country, had been lowered from eight groats to one shilling and tenpence[460].

There are other statements of the same kind[461], but one of the most strongly expressed of these is from the justices of Suffolk, "We giue y^r lo(rdshi)ps many humble thanks for your great fauours shewed unto vs and to the whole state of this county in these necessiteouse times by those most prudent, compassionate and charitable considerations deliuered in your bookes of directions and sent vnto vs w^ch we haue w^th our uttermost endeauours laboured in euery parte to see accomplished as well by o^rselues as others. And we must acknowledge with o^r and the countryes great thankfulnesse unto y^r lo(rdshi)ps that y^e benefit w^ch hereof hath arisen hath bine beyonde all expectation inestemable and of wonderful effect[462]."

But the strongest argument that on the whole these measures were beneficial is to be found in the fact that they were enforced throughout the country by the justices with very few protests. The justices would as a rule be landlords and generally corn owners; the regulations were against their interests, and, unless they had thought that they contributed to the public welfare, they would have complained more and performed less. When they thought a course objectionable they said so: many of them did not approve of a second search of the stocks of corn[463]; in several instances they said that the order to prevent millers from buying corn was not beneficial, because the millers sold in small quantities to the poor who did not come to market[464]. But the rest of the orders concerning corn were enforced nearly always without comment or with approval.

It is not difficult to see reasons for the success of such an organisation. Corn fluctuated violently in price because of the narrowness of the area from which the supplies came. Even with our own worldwide supply a corner in wheat has been attempted and for a time maintained. When little corn was imported into England, and even counties were largely self-supporting, farmers might easily raise the price by keeping back their corn from market[465].

But the great price was not always the worst of the trouble. The justices of Devonshire tell us that corn could not be had for money, and the statement is confirmed by Fitz-Geffrie in his Curse of Corne-horders, "O miserable condition! the poore man is put to a double labour, first to get a little money for Corne and then to get a little corne for money & this last is the hardest labour; he might haue earned almost halfe a bushell while hee runnes about begging to buy halfe a pecke[466]."

We must remember the narrowness of the market; the excessive fluctuations in price, and the difficulty of finding a seller willing to sell a small quantity of grain, before we can criticise fairly the organisation which was established during these years of high-priced corn.

In any case the corn orders of the Government seem to have helped to maintain the public peace. In 1527, in 1551, in 1587, in 1597, and in 1623 the rise in the price of corn immediately occasioned disorder[467], and even in 1630 attacks were made on the carts carrying corn, and there were other signs of disturbance[468]. But in this last season of scarcity there was no serious outburst. The orders of the Government probably relieved the distress and certainly helped to convince the people that their rulers were trying to help them.

The organisation for supplying the poor with corn in 1631 is both indirectly and directly connected with the history of poor relief. We have already seen that the orders for supplying corn seem to have suggested the orders for the ordinary relief of the poor, and that both sets of orders were worked by similar methods. The season of 1630-1 is the first in which the administrators seem to have properly fulfilled their duties. Then the commands of the Government seem to have been vigilantly enforced. This was not always easily accomplished, rebellious inhabitants were coerced, negligent justices were punished[469]. But on the whole the justices seem to have worked with zeal, and the success obtained by them during this exceptional crisis must have made it easier for them to cope with the relief of the poor in more ordinary times.

Moreover the direct relief afforded by the corn stores must be taken into account when we attempt to estimate the amount of comfort enjoyed by the manual workers in the reign of Charles I.

Prof. Rogers has compared the condition of the labouring population at different times by estimating the amount of food which could be bought by a labourer receiving average wages in each period. This method of comparison leads him to the conclusion that the majority of the population were in a very miserable condition before the outbreak of the Civil War[470].

But in 1630-1, and to some extent also in 1623, labourers did not pay the market price for their food, and this fact must modify any conclusion derived from such a source so far as the reigns of James I. and Charles I. are concerned. Not only was corn sold under price from public granaries and stores, but it is probable that whenever arrangements were made to serve the labourers at home the prices were somewhat reduced, as the sellers would then be saved the trouble of taking the corn to market, and the expense of paying the market tolls.

Moreover it has often been pointed out that the relative comfort of any class can be better ascertained if we consider the earnings of the family rather than those of the individual[471]. This was a period in which women could easily obtain work in spinning and when children were apprenticed at an early age, and so required little support from their parents. For these reasons it seems likely that the labourer of the reign of Charles I. would be better off than the amount of his wages would lead us to suppose, and this estimate is confirmed by the scale of diet fixed for the boys in the Children's Hospital of Norwich in 1632.

The boys in the hospital were between the ages of ten and fourteen. For dinner they were always to have six ounces of bread and a pint of beer: three days in the week they had also a pint of pottage and six ounces of beef, and on the remaining four an ounce of butter and two of cheese. For supper they had always six ounces of bread, a pint of beer, an ounce of butter and two of cheese, and for breakfast every day three ounces of bread, half an ounce of butter and half a pint of beer[472]. As this represents the food of the destitute orphans of Norwich it is not likely to be much better than the usual standard of the poorest class, and seems to compare very favourably with the food of a boy in the same class in our own time. The ordinary standard of living thus does not appear to be miserable, but the poor must have suffered terribly, if there had been no exceptional relief, whenever there was no work for them to do, and when corn was double the usual price.

It is these fluctuations that were the chief source of misery, and by lessening their effect the scarcity measures of the time were of enormous importance to the whole of the labouring class.

But relief in times of emergency was afforded to the needy in other times of exceptional distress.

In Winter fuel was provided. Thus at St Albans, wood was bought for the poor in the reign of Queen Elizabeth[473]. In London there was a coal yard before 1590, and early in the reign of James I. the City authorities obtained permission to import four thousand chaldron of "sea cole" free of duty for the purpose of supplying those in need of help[474]. Payments for fuel formed part of the regular organisation at Norwich[475], and directions to secure a supply to the poor of their district are contained also in the orders to the overseers of 1623[476]. This provision is another illustration of the fact that a great deal of the relief given was designed to protect the people from excessive fluctuations in price.

Methods of relieving the poor in times of sickness were also numerous. The Great Plague of London was not an isolated attack; throughout the seventeenth century few years pass without an outbreak in one of the large towns. Special orders were drawn up to prevent the spread of infection; watchmen were appointed to guard stricken houses, and the inmates for the time had to be supported by the community[477]. The cost of this severely taxed local resources. At Cambridge we hear that in 1630, 2800 claimed relief and only seven score were able to contribute. In this case a brief was issued authorising collections from other parts[478], and London and Norwich sent generous contributions[479]. One town seems to have helped another frequently when this scourge broke out: New Sarum sent aid to London, Norwich to Yarmouth, and both New Sarum and Bury thanked the Londoners for the help they had themselves received under like circumstances[480].

Pest houses were often established; at Reading eight were built, and we hear of their erection in Norwich, London, Cambridge and Windsor[481]. The way the funds were raised for the plague-stricken poor of Windsor is one of the many illustrations of the fact that private charity and public rates were often used for the same purposes and administered by the same officials. The site for the pest house was given by an alderman, some of the money was raised for the relief of the infected poor "by way of taxation," part was given by gentlemen of the neighbourhood, and the rest was probably paid out of the town chest[482]. At Hitchen and in other places relief was given to the plague-stricken by means of the poor law organisation[483].

The Privy Council frequently made orders connected with the plague. Sometimes they ordered the erection of pest houses, sometimes a special collection. In Grantham and Worcester the rich fled from the infected town, so that government was at a standstill; the absentees were required to pay double rates and, if necessary, to return and help govern the town[484]. At another time the paper-makers in Suffolk were prevented from working because of the plague, and a special collection was ordered for them[485]. All these orders illustrate the paternal nature of the Privy Council government, and also seem to show that in social matters it was exercised in favour of the poor.

But not only in time of plague was provision made for the sick. At Norwich it was part of the regular organisation for the poor; in London St Thomas's and St Bartholomew's hospitals were already in existence, and in most towns there were numerous lazar houses. In some places the help provided was even greater than that of to-day; a town physician was appointed especially to look after the poor. Newcastle adopted this plan in the reign of Elizabeth, and the practice was continued down to the time of the Civil War, and in 1629 a "learned physician" was engaged by the Mayor and Corporation of Barnstaple to give advice gratis to the poor[486]. This happened just at the time when, as we have seen, there was great activity in matters connected with the poor, and is an illustration of the fact that the duties of the seventeenth century municipality were very various, and that even in 1629 the town authorities were sometimes pioneers in matters concerning the poor.

Fire was another way in which sudden loss was caused to large numbers of people. Houses were still built largely of wood and often very close together. Whole towns were not infrequently destroyed. Tiverton suffered twice in this way, and the suddenness of the calamity to so flourishing a town seems to have especially struck men's imagination. "He which at one a clocke was worth fiue thousand pound and as the Prophet saith drunke his Wine in bowles of fine Siluer plate, had not by two a clocke so much as a woodden dish left to eate his meate in, nor a house to couer his sorrowfull head"[487]. In the second destruction of 1612 three hundred of the poor people were boarded in the shire, and collections to rebuild the town were made throughout the country. Similar disasters happened to several other towns, to Dorchester in 1613 and Hertford in 1637, and like collections were made for them among charitable people.

1632: "Paid Mr Henderson the townes physician his ½ yeares stipend due at lady-day 1632, 20l." A payment of £10 was also made in 1647, to "doctor Samuel Rand the townes physition." M. A. Richardson's Tracts, Vol. III. p. 47. Extracts from the municipal accounts of Newcastle. Barnstaple, Nov. 24th, 1629: "Dr Symes a learned Physician engaged by Mayor and Corporation to be resident in town and give advice gratis to the poor at £20 per annum for two years to be paid out of town stock if not raised by subscriptions." Wyot's Diary, Barnstaple Records, North Devon Herald, April 21, 1881.

Relief was also given to individuals who suffered loss from fire, sometimes by means of authorised collections and sometimes out of the public funds[488]. Thus in the North Riding £20 was paid to twelve persons of Thornton and Farmanby, on account of their losses caused by fire[489].

Thus in the first half of the seventeenth century relief in times of emergency forms a considerable part of the assistance given to people in distress.

That provided in years of high priced corn was not distributed only to those who were usually paupers but to the whole of the labouring class; that afforded in times of fire or sickness affected all classes of the community. There was thus much less difference between paupers and the rest of the community than there is to-day. All classes were relieved because poor relief was originally part of a paternal system of government under which the rulers regarded the maintenance of the usual prosperity of every class as a part of their duties. There is a curious case of landlord and farmer relief during the season of plenty in 1619. It was then stated that of late years there had been so much corn that the farmers were impoverished. A letter was therefore sent to the justices of every county ordering them to confer concerning some fit place where a magazine might be provided for storing a quantity of corn. The reason for this is stated to be that it is the "care of the state to provyd as well to keepe the price of corne in tymes of plenty at such reasonable rates as may afford encouragemt and lively good to the farmer and husbandman as to moderate the rates thereof in time of scarcitie for the releefe of the poorer folke"[490]. Few regulations could make it clearer than this, that the paternal measures of the Government were not confined to one particular class, but affected the whole of the community.

The distinction between paupers and non-paupers therefore was much less clear than it is to-day, and it is also true that the distinction between voluntary contributions and compulsory poor rates was much less rigidly defined. The supply of the poor with corn is nearly always stated to have been a voluntary measure, but it was carried out under very considerable pressure from the justices. Sometimes the pressure amounted to compulsion. Thus in the Sarum division of Wiltshire some gave "franklie and freely good quantities of their store" to the poor but others were "wilfull." The justices "terrified them a little w^th conventing them before the Lords of the Counsell and then they seemed very willing and tractable"[491]. It is difficult to say therefore how far the corn charities of the time were voluntary and how much they were compulsory. There was also a close connection between private and public charity in other forms of relief.

Probably in every town there were numbers of endowed charities controlled by the municipal officers or by overseers or by some public or semi-public authorities, which were practically a part of the same system as that enforced by law. Such were the four royal hospitals of London and the hospitals of Gloucester and Norwich. Such also were the many almshouses under the management of corporations, as were the almshouses founded respectively by Leche and by Kendrick at Reading, and the many charities for apprenticing poor children and lending money to poor tradesmen, which we shall afterwards consider in detail. Sometimes the connection was closer still, and the workhouse like the Free Library of to-day might be partly provided by private generosity and partly by public rates. Such was the case with the Barnstaple workhouse and the Jersey school of Newark[492].

The relief of the poor in times of emergency thus brings into prominence two of the main features of the poor relief of the time. First, that the public compulsory system was developed from a voluntary system and that in the seventeenth century voluntary and public poor relief were closely connected. Secondly, that the poor relief of the time was intimately connected with the general system of government under which all classes were compelled by Government to do their duties and any class might be relieved that for the time failed to obtain its usual degree of prosperity.