1597-1644.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW AS A WHOLE.

• 1. Importance of the period 1597 to 1644.
• (a) Because it was the period when the relief of the impotent poor became established.
• (b) Because it is the only period in which many efforts were made to set the unemployed to work.
• Administration of the Poor Law as a whole.
• 2. Negligent administration of the Poor Law in the North and extreme West.
• 3. The administration of the Poor Law in the rest of England varied with the action of the Privy Council.
• 4. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1597 and 1605.
• 5. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1605 and 1629.
• 6. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1629 and 1644.
• (a) State of affairs in 1631.
• (b) Improvement effected in 1631 and 1632.
• (c) Improvement maintained between 1631 and 1640.
• Provision of Work for the Unemployed.
• 7. The improvement effected in 1631 especially concerned the unemployed.
• 8. The detailed report from Bassetlaw.
• 9. Provision of work: (a) in the North and extreme West, (b) in the towns, (c) in the Western counties, (d) in the Eastern counties.
• 10. Summary.

We have already examined both the machinery which existed for the execution of the poor law and the different methods which were used for relieving the impotent, for training the young and for providing work for the unemployed. We have now to consider the administration as a whole; to find out when and where the machinery was put in motion and how far these methods were generally employed. The history of poor relief in the sixteenth century has already shown us that it was far more easy to pass a Poor Law than to procure a good system of administration. There were many poor laws before those of 1597 and 1601 but they were not well administered: they were never so generally or so effectively enforced as to become part of the practice as well as of the law of the country.

If the last Elizabethan poor law had been no more successful than these earlier statutes the whole system of compulsory poor relief would probably have collapsed during the Civil War. The fact that the part of the poor law relating to children and the destitute survived that war, and has ever since formed part of our social organisation may be attributed therefore to the improved administration of the earlier Stuarts. The administrators of this period are thus responsible for the continued practice of any legal system of relief at all.

But the history of administration during this period is important for a second reason. The part of the poor law relating to the impotent poor and children has been enforced ever since the reign of Charles I., but the clauses relating to the unemployed were very little executed after the Civil War. In 1662 the destitute were relieved, but the unemployed were no longer set to work. In this respect therefore the poor law administration of the reigns of the earlier Stuarts is unique. It is interesting therefore to examine the methods then employed a little more closely and see if the instances of the provision of work which we have already considered are isolated cases of this kind of relief or if they are examples of a general system. If the unemployed were at all generally set to work, then this period is important, not only because the legal relief of the destitute then became the practice of the country, but because we then had more poor relief than we have ever had before or since. For a short time a limited kind of socialism was to some extent established.

We will therefore now try to find out how the events of the period throw light on these two points; (1) when and how was the system of poor relief thoroughly established, and (2) how far was that part of it which concerned the employment of the poor ever an important part of the social organisation of the country.

The two parts of our inquiry are much intermingled, and it is impossible to separate them entirely. But in the first part we will consider the system of poor relief as a whole including the finding of work for the unemployed when it is closely associated with the other portions of the system, and we will afterwards examine more in detail a few points which especially concern the provision of work.

With regard to the relief of the poor as a whole, it seems clear that the law was not equally well administered at all places or in all times. The places in which the administration of the law was least satisfactory were those farthest from the seat of government. They are indicated in some cases by the absence of justices' reports; in others by the character of the reports, or by the distinct statement of the statute of 1662. From Northumberland and Cumberland and some of the counties of Wales we have no justices' reports on the poor law, and we have little evidence from other sources as to any effective enforcement of the law. From Westmoreland and Lancashire we have very few reports until 1637 and 1638, and these seem to indicate that the system of poor relief was then only recently introduced[574]. From Wiltshire, Devonshire and Cornwall we have a few reports, but they indicate a comparatively careless administration. There are few or no cases of setting the poor to work, and in Wiltshire it was difficult to find masters for the apprentices. But except in Northumberland and Cumberland some kind of legal poor relief was administered in all these counties, although it seems to have been less well administered than in other parts of the country. The statute of 1662 tells us that at the time of its enactment parts of Wales, the counties forming the Bishopric of Durham and the county of Yorkshire derived little benefit from the statute of Elizabeth[575], and except Yorkshire, these counties are precisely those from which we have few or no reports.

But in the South-east and Midland parts of England and the rest of the Western shires the case was different. During some part of our period the system seems to have been on the whole fairly well organised.

But this was not equally the case at all times. It was the case only when the justices were vigilant, and they seem to have been made vigilant mainly by the frequent letters and orders of the Privy Council.

It is this action of the Privy Council that seems to make the administration of this period different from that of the sixteenth century, though it was the existence of the justices that caused this action to be so effectual. But the letters and orders of the Privy Council were not always equally frequent even during the period from 1597 to 1644.

We have already seen that in 1597 a letter ordering the good execution of the new poor law was sent to all the justices of England and Wales. We have also seen that between 1597 and 1629 this kind of action was exceptional. The Council interfered in particular cases, and in times of scarcity commanded general measures of relief, but before 1629 it did not steadily enforce the administration of general measures with regard to the relief of the poor in ordinary times. But from 1629 to 1640 we find that the matter is altogether different; a commission is appointed, a new organisation is introduced by the Book of Orders of 1630/1, and for nine years the pressure of the Council on the justices is constant and continuous. We have now to see if the improvement in the general administration of the poor law in all parts of the country corresponded to the periods when the Privy Council was vigorous. We will consider first the period between 1597 and 1605, secondly that from 1605 to 1629, and lastly the years from 1629 to 1640. We shall find that there are grounds for believing that the administration of the system of poor relief was best when most pressure was exercised and was lax when pressure was withdrawn. The main improvement therefore in the organisation of the system took place between 1629 and 1640, that is under the personal government of Charles I.

The directions of the Privy Council in 1597 seem to have had an immediate effect both as regards measures of relief and measures of repression.

As regards the repressive measures and the efficacy of Houses of Correction the opinion of Lord Coke is decisive. He had many opportunities of knowledge and had no reason for not being impartial. Speaking of the employment and correction of vagrants he says, "And this excellent work is without question feasible. For, upon the making of the statute of 39 Eliz. and a good space after whilest Justices of the Peace and other officers were diligent and industrious there was not a rogue to be seen in any part of England, but when Justices and other Officers became tepidi or trepidi Rogues etc. swarmed again." Speaking of gaols and Houses of Correction he tells us, "Few or none are committed to the common gaol amongst so many malefactors but they come out worse then they went in. And few are committed to the House of Correction or Working-House, but they come out better[576]." For a little time therefore vagrants were repressed, and the discipline and relief afforded in Houses of Correction were very efficacious.

There was also an improvement with regard to the administration of relief to the more deserving classes of the poor. We have already seen that special energy was displayed in the West Riding of Yorkshire at this time, and that there the justices found it very difficult to administer the law, but did execute it to a considerable extent. In Devonshire also the justices received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant, urging them to take especial care for the relief of those in want, and they too began to take measures for carrying out the law. They revoked the licenses granted for beggars, put in order the Houses of Correction and authorised a system of organised billeting on the rich. The poor were to be relieved with two meals a day, one to every household or two or more according to the ability of the householder. If there was any default the justices might assess any sum up to eighteenpence weekly "for every pole[577]." Moreover the justices were to raise stocks for setting the poor to work. All this points to a great increase in vigilance after the Order in Council of 1597 and it also points to the fact that the administration was recent. A general system of billeting was seldom adopted when the legal relief of the poor had been long put in practice. Moreover Devonshire and Yorkshire in later times were backward in administering the law, so that the improvement was probably at least as great in other counties.

We should also derive a favourable opinion as to the good execution of the law at that time from the Duke of Stettin's account of his journey through England in 1602. Speaking of the Royal Exchange he states, "It is a pleasure to go about there, for one is not molested or accosted by beggars, who are elsewhere so frequently met with in places of this kind. For in all England they do not suffer any beggars except they be few in number and outside the gates.

"Every parish cares for its own poor, strangers are brought to the hospital, but those that belong to the kingdom or have come from distant places are sent from one parish to the other, their wants being cared for until at last they reach their home[578]." The Duke of Stettin judges favourably most things that he sees in England but still his account could not have been written unless beggars had been out of sight in the parts visited by him and unless the poor had seemed to be relieved in England more effectually than in his own country.

After 1597 therefore the execution of the law appears to have been more vigorous and the improvement is likely to have been connected with the action taken by the Privy Council in that year.

We will now see how the administration of poor relief was carried out between 1605 and 1629. We know that during these years the Privy Council did not make continuous efforts on behalf of the deserving poor. A commission however was contemplated in January 1619/20, and the special measures in connection with the years of scarcity of 1621 to 1623 were much more organised than in former years, and may have suggested an improved administration of the law about that time. We therefore find that on the whole the law appears to have been badly executed but that from 1621 to 1623 some improvement took place.

We will first see what are the grounds for thinking the law was badly executed between 1605 and 1629.

Lord Coke himself tells us "rogues soon swarmed again" and his opinion is confirmed by the evidence of a tract of this time called "Stanleyes Remedy or the VVay how to reform wandring Beggers, Theeves, high-way Robbers and Pickpockets."

This pamphlet was not published until 1646 but seems to have been composed about the year 1606[579]. The writer is a converted highwayman who is anxious for the reformation of his fellow-sinners. He states "that Beggerie and Theeverie did never more abound," and he complains that the branding and whipping parts of the statutes are put in execution long before any place is provided where the poor could have work. He thought that this was most unfair to the vagrants for many of them would work if they could and go voluntarily to workhouses if they were in existence. He therefore urges the establishment of places where men could have work in all the larger parishes of the kingdom[580].

Another pamphlet complaining of the bad execution of the law was entitled "Greevous Grones for the Poore" and was published in 1622. The writer of this states that "though the number of the Poore do dailie increase all things worketh for the worst in their behalfe. For there hath beene no collection for them, no not these seven yeares in many parishes of this land especiallie in countrie townes; but many of those parishes turneth forth their Poore, yea and their lustie labourers that will not worke or for any misdemeenor want worke, to begge, filtch, and steale, for their maintenance so that the country is pittifully pestered with them[581]."

Another document of 1624 gives precisely the same information. This is a letter from a Mr Williamson to Sir Julius Caesar, the Master of the Rolls, who was one of the most charitably disposed gentlemen of the time. The writer thinks the neglect of the overseers to apprentice children is the true cause of vagrancy. He tells us that the seventeenth century vagrant like the modern tramp was very seldom a man who knew a trade[582]. The existence of these untrained men was due to the fault of the administrators of the Poor Law. For these "intollerable offences haue originally growen from the Ou(er)seers of the poore who heretofore and att this day haue and doe so ou(er)see as though they did not see at all[583]."

These writings would therefore lead us to believe that justices soon grew careless; the poor were not relieved and in many places there was very little execution of the law at all. All these statements are made by writers who are vigorously supporting only one side of the case but the official evidence of the period confirms their view of the matter. The reasons given for the appointment of the commission suggested in 1619/20 show that the unofficial writers had not exaggerated the existing neglect in the administration of the poor laws. Good laws have been made but they are not executed because the justices are negligent and the judges of Assize have not time to fully investigate the matter. The laws in consequence "are in many partes of our Realme laid aside or little regarded as lawes not in force or of small consequence, whereas in some other counties and partes of this kingdome in w^ch by the diligence and industrye of sume justices of the peace and other magistrates the said lawes haue bine dulye putt in execucon there hath evidentlye appeared much good and benefitt to haue redowned to the Comon welth by the same[584]." At this time therefore there was a real likelihood that the poor law would become obsolete.

However the season of scarcity in 1622-3 was accompanied by a crisis in the cloth trade and the Privy Council was active in enforcing measures of relief. A great improvement was consequently then effected in the execution of temporary measures of corn relief, and some reports indicate that this was accompanied by a better administration of the ordinary poor law also.

Thus from Burnham in Buckinghamshire the justices report, "We have alsoe looked into and have caused the poore to bee well provided for in every parrish within this diuision both by stocks to sett them on worke as alsoe by weekely contributions[585]." From several of the hundreds of Suffolk there are similar reports. Thus in every "towne" of Lackford and Exning the rates had been augmented and the "poorer sorte of people within the seurall townes and places are ordered to be sett on worke[586]." From other districts in both East and West we have like accounts[587].

Between the years 1605 and 1629 therefore the administration of poor relief was on the whole negligent and in many districts the poor law was already considered to be of little importance. The government was however still anxious to secure its enforcement and the measures taken to relieve distress in 1622-3 effected an improvement in a few districts.

But from 1629 to 1644 we have a different state of things. We know already that during this period the action of the Privy Council was continuous and constant, and it is in this period therefore that we shall be able to see how far it was effective. The justices' reports, to which we have already often referred are the main sources of our information.

We will endeavour to see how far the evidence of the early part of the period confirms the view we have already formed as to the administration of the law at the beginning of the time, and we will secondly try to estimate the evidence as to improvement during this period.

The condition of affairs before 1631 is indicated by the preamble to the commission of Jan. 1631/2 and by some of the earlier reports of 1631. The reasons given for the appointment of the commission of 1631/2 are almost exactly the same as those given in the draft of 1619/20. The justices are said as before to be negligent so that the laws were almost obsolete in some parts of the country, and this alone shows that there had been little permanent improvement since 1620. The preamble also refers to an earlier time "vpon the present making of the said lawes," when they were duly executed and thus confirms the evidence as to the good execution of the laws after 1597[588].

The justices' reports of 1631 give us more detailed information of the same kind. One of these was sent from three of the hundreds of Hampshire, Fawley, Bountisborough and Mainsborough. The justices say that they sent an abstract of the act to the officials concerned and ordered constables, tithingmen, and overseers to bring presentments to them. But they "for the most parte" replied, "that they haue noe poore that wanted worke or releife, that they had noe rogues but suche as were punished." The justices thought this state of things too good to be true; they made further enquiries and found that the highways were out of repair, that no monthly meetings had been held by the overseers and that there were no stocks for setting the poor to work. They also heard that some of the poor were "in noe small want" but did not complain because of ignorance or fear. They hoped to effect improvement by exacting fines for negligence, by publishing the particulars of their monthly meetings, and by sending a series of definite questions to the overseers as to the names of the poor relieved or set to work and of the children over ten years of age who were not bound apprentice[589]. In this way they tried to obtain detailed statements so that there could be no evasion of the law. There is a later report from Fawley concerning corn and apprentices, and the part of the law relating to apprentices was certainly then carried out[590].

But there are other districts in which the justices do not tell us of negligent officials, but rather seem proud of their vigour and yet seem to imply that it was only recently the law had come into force. This is particularly the case in Radnorshire and Cheshire. In two divisions of Radnor the justices say they have appointed overseers, and have given particular directions as to the provision of stocks and return of the names of the poor relieved[591]. The reports suggest that the justices were now energetic, but that little had been done before; the mention of the appointment of overseers is unaccompanied by the word new or by any statement as to the rendering of the accounts of the old overseers, so that it is possible that these were the first overseers appointed in that district.

In two of the divisions of Cheshire the same state of things is implied more definitely. The justices say that they have ordered the collection of a stock for the setting the poor to work and for the relief of the impotent, but they find the people poor and averse to paying money for any purpose of the kind. They fear some time will elapse before these orders can be properly executed. At present these divisions have not got a House of Correction, and the justices wish to have one in the Castle in order that they may be able to subdue the people to subjection[592]. These reports seem to reveal a very primitive state of things, and recall the difficulties in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1597, when poor relief seems to have been first enforced there, and the people greatly objected to the imposition of rates.

Other reports show that the Book of Orders strengthened the hands of reformers; thus in the town of Wells, charities had been negligently administered, but after the issue of the orders the Recorder was able to procure information formerly withheld, and hoped to effect farther improvement by obtaining a commission of charitable uses[593].

It is thus fairly clear that before 1631 the law had not been well administered. We will now examine the evidence as to the improvement between 1631 and 1640.

The greater number of the reports of 1631 and 1632 point to some execution of the law before 1631 and suggest improvement rather than entire innovation. The justices generally state they have "raised rates" or have bound many more children apprentices or that stocks had been provided in the parishes where there were none before. Two reports enable us to trace the process of improvement in detail, and seem to throw considerable light on the general statements of other documents of the kind. They do not however present so favourable a view as to the execution of the law as most of the other returns. These reports relate to the district of Braughing in Hertfordshire. The overseers of thirteen places in the half hundred of Braughing made returns to the justices at six successive monthly meetings held in accordance with the provisions of the Book of Orders, between Feb. 7th and June 27, 1631. Abstracts of these returns were sent in by the justices in two documents, one of which was forwarded in April and the other in July 1631[594]. We can thus see exactly when the improvement was effected. At the first meeting four parishes provided corn at reduced rates for the poor. The Book of Orders relating to scarcity had been issued since September, and we should expect some improvement would already have been made. Six sets of overseers had already placed some children apprentices, but not very many, and only two of the largest places had stocks for setting the poor to work. At the last meeting on June 27th relief was much more extensively administered. Two other places provided corn at reduced rates: the six parishes which formerly had placed a few apprentices now bound many more, while five other townships also provided for the children in this manner. A much better provision for the employment of the poor was also made. In five places instead of two there were now stocks for this purpose and most of the others give reasons for the want of one. In three cases we are told there is plenty of employment, at Eastwick the inhabitants set the poor to work, and at Westmill the general statement only is made that the poor are relieved according to their necessities. Three places do not provide stocks or give any reason for not doing so. We can also see that these funds might often have disappeared, for the ten pounds stock at Hunsdon had "decayed" to only five pounds at the end of the period. In the district of Braughing therefore the law was executed in the larger places before 1630 but negligently even there. Immediately however after the receipt of the Book of Orders the justices set themselves to work, held the monthly meetings, stimulated the overseers, and in five months succeeded in effecting a very considerable improvement.

This was only typical of what was going on all over the country. It is of course impossible to quote all the reports of the period; it is only possible to give particular cases, and to state that they are not isolated instances, but are typical of the documents of that time. Thus in April, 1631, we hear that meetings had been rapidly held and that they had been partially successful, but that the justices were still in the midst of their activity; they had done a good deal to make matters better and were still doing more. For example in the account sent from the New Forest the justices write "the rates for the poore where neede most requireth wee haue caused to be rised for reliefe of the poore people w^thin that part, and haue given strict order to the ouerseers for providing necessary releife for such as are ympotent and such as are able to sett them to worke, and haue alreadie placed many poore children apprentizes and doe proceede in placinge of more[595]."

In the returns sent later in the year the organisation appears to be more settled and we hear that not only the rates are raised but that they have had a good effect. Thus in Monslow in Shropshire the justices state "and as for the late booke of orders for the reliefe of the poore and the punishing of rogues and vagabonds wee have had severalle monthlye meetings in the said hundred and wee have long since worked such effect thereby as they have not any rogues or vagabonds appeared amongst vs or walked abroade as wee can heare of since our first meetings, and the impotent poore are relieved in such sort by their parishoners as wee have noe complaints and there are stocks in all parishes more or lesse as the charge of the parishes require to set the able poore on worke[596]." Not all the reports are as favourable as this, but on the whole they indicate that improved order followed the execution of the Book of Orders. It thus is clear that the Orders of 1631 had a very considerable immediate effect both in bringing the law into operation in places where it had been almost or altogether neglected and still more in improving the administration in those districts in which the system was already to some extent administered though not yet effectually.

We have now to see whether this improved administration was maintained. The reports are certainly less frequent after 1631 but those that remain shew that the efficiency is preserved and there is much to indicate a farther improvement.

We will first examine a few documents which seem to indicate that the area of administration was extending into backward districts, we will then investigate a few cases in which we have reports both in 1631 and in 1638 or 1639, and we will lastly consider a special department of the poor law system, namely the placing of apprentices.

We have already noted the fact that in the earlier years of the period there were few reports from Westmoreland and Lancashire.

But in 1638 there are a series of documents from Westmoreland[597] and several reports from Lancashire. In 1638 some of the Lancashire parishes adopted the system of billeting the poor in need of relief on the richer inhabitants. This plan does not seem to have long continued as an exclusive system of relief, and the facts that it was still employed and that these are the earliest reports from Westmoreland seem to indicate that a compulsory system of poor relief had only lately been established in the northern counties. Moreover in 1637 we are told that at the meeting of the justices in Rochdale in Sept. 1637, the churchwardens of Middleton confessed that they had never before levied a tax for the relief of the poor there; they now however proceeded to levy one, and in March in the following year the tax provided the necessary relief[598]. All this seems to show that the area of the administration of the poor law was extending and that in 1638 there was little danger of the system of poor relief becoming obsolete but that it was obtaining a firmer hold over the country.

We will now examine a few of the cases in which we have reports from the same district both in 1631 and 1638 or 1639. We have already noted the detailed returns from Braughing. It happens that one of the latest documents of the series returned in August 1639 comes from the hundreds of Hertford and Braughing. The justices tell us that our "ympotent poore are weekelie releiued by a certein pencon and the rates increased as necessitie requires. And those of able bodies are plentifullie stored with work for the maynteynance of their families"; five apprentices had also lately been bound[599]. From this we see that the improved administration there lasted throughout the period.

We have several other places from which we have similar reports. Skenfreth, one of the hundreds of Monmouth, often sent accounts of the proceedings of the justices. One belongs to May, 1631. The justices state some of the things they did both before the Commission and afterwards. Before the Commission they provided weekly stipends for all the aged and impotent people, "sithence the said commission" they "have taken order that the same stipends shalbe contineually paied soe that none of any such poore people have made any complaint unto us for any mainetenance." Both before and after the commission they had punished rogues and since they had also placed apprentices and suppressed alehouses. Moreover the highways had been last year in better condition than for twenty years before[600].

Thus the immediate improvement effected by the commission was that the pensions were paid as well as ordered, apprentices were bound and alehouses suppressed.

In May, 1637, we have a report from the same district together with the hundreds of Ragland and Trellech. At that time apprentices were bound, rogues punished and efforts made to secure the observance of fasting days. The justices have also "taken course for provision of stock to sett the poore on worke," and have "caused to be sufficiently relieved all the aged lame and ympotent people[601]." Thus if these documents are to be believed the improvement effected in 1631 was maintained and even increased in this hundred of Skenfreth.

There are many other cases in which reports are sent in several times from the same place and all show that the improvement made in 1631 was continued in 1637, 1638 or 1639[602].

We will now examine a few of the reports which relate especially to the placing of apprentices. Before May 1635 the Privy Council or the commissioners seem to have urged the justices to see especially that this part of the law was carried out, and to have asked them to report the names of the apprentices and those of their masters[603]. The reports sent in 1634 and 1635 therefore relate especially to the placing of apprentices and the monthly meetings of the justices.

Reports from twenty-one places were sent in between July 17th and July 31st, 1634. In almost every case the justices expressly state that they hold monthly meetings and bind poor children apprentice[604]. In the year 1635 the statements are more detailed. Between May 20th and May 30th replies were sent from ten places in eight of which the names of both apprentices and masters were given[605]. Sometimes these were numerous; thus at Blandford in Dorset one hundred and nineteen apprentices were bound in the course of two years[606]; in one district of Somerset the names of one hundred and sixty-six are returned[607], while in all ten districts a fair amount of work was done. Thus in 1634 and 1635 apprenticeship was more insisted upon than other methods of poor relief and it seems to have been very generally well administered. We hear of some complaints but not many in proportion to the number of reports.

We thus see that during the years 1630 to 1639 we have a large amount of information concerning the administration of the Poor Law. We find that a great improvement was effected in 1631. We also find that the area of administration continued to extend into the Northern counties after 1631: the difference is indicated by the fact that in 1638 it is exceptional to find a place without a poor rate, whereas in 1631 the Government spoke of the laws as being almost obsolete in many places. We see further that sometimes the later reports come from the same places as the earlier, and that then the administration continues to be reported as good. Lastly, in regard to apprentices we are told that the Privy Council made special efforts to enforce the law, and that all over the country there is evidence that it was enforced though occasionally without favourable results. There is thus reason to believe that the efforts made by the central government to enforce the law were at last successful, and that the period to which we owe the survival of our English system of poor relief is that of the personal government of Charles I.

But we have already noticed that not only is this period the critical time in the history of the poor relief that survived, but in one respect the poor relief of this period was unique. Many efforts were made to find work for the unemployed. Relief of this kind was so much a part of the general system of the time that we have already examined many instances in which it was administered.

We will first investigate a few more of the reports of 1631, and we shall find that the improvement effected in all parts of the administration of poor relief especially concerned the relief of the ablebodied; we will then examine a detailed report in order to see what light it throws on the interpretation of the general statements of other justices, and we will lastly try to find out if relief of this kind was confined to a few districts, or was administered all over the country, and also in what parts of the country there was the greatest need of employment.

To begin with cases in which improvement was reported in April 1631. From a large district of Hertfordshire we hear "we haue already raysed a stocke in some parishes, and are raysing stocks for the rest to sett all the poore on worke in this division[608]." In Essex, Richmond, Bedford and Beverley fresh taxes for this purpose had just been raised, and at Agbrigg they were still "setlinge such a course for raysinge of stocke to sett y^e people of able bodies on work[609]."

At Winchester the same thing is implied: the stock has been put in a clothier's hands, so that now the poor do not want work[610]. Twenty-eight reports relating not only to measures for corn, but also for the poor were sent in between April 21st and April 30th 1631. In seventeen of these the poor were set to work, and in many cases we can see that the measures have been taken since the receipt of the Book of Orders of January 1631/2[611].

In the answers sent in May we have the same kind of information. In Brixton and Wallington we have a report similar to that from Hertfordshire; "stockes of mony," we are told, "are raised in moste of the parishes w^thin the said hundrede and burrow and the reste not yet raised are w^th as much expedicon as may bee to bee raised for buyinge of flax, hempe and other materialls to set the poore to worke[612]." From Arundel there is a like account, "we haue caused the taxations for the releefe of the poor to be raised in euery parish in this time of scarsitye, and haue likewise caused stocks of mony to be raised in euery parish to buy materialls to sett the poor a warke, and we haue caused the Statute of Laborors to be inquired after and to be putt in execution[613]."

We can thus see that in 1631 the justices were busy raising stocks to provide work for the poor, and that in seventeen documents, or more than half of the reports of the last ten days of April 1631, we are informed that measures had been taken with this object.

We will now examine a more detailed report relating to sixty parishes of Bassetlaw in County Nottingham and sent in during March 1636/7[614]. In most cases information is given under four headings, first we are told how many of the impotent poor are relieved, secondly the amount of the town stock, thirdly how many rogues have been punished, and lastly how many apprentices have been bound. This document is important because it seems to indicate the number of parochial officials who provided work for the unemployed in the district of Bassetlaw. This is not directly stated in the report, but the overseers return the amount of the town stock of their parish whenever a town stock existed. From the method in which the return is made it seems that this town stock was always used for finding employment for the able-bodied poor[615]. Other methods of dealing with those out of work are also noted, so that it appears that in forty-five out of sixty parishes the parochial authorities provided employment for those poor who could work. The amount of the stock was often quite small; in one case only sixteen shillings, but it is very possible that in this instance the parish also was small; in another place the stock consisted of a sum of about thirty pounds, and the average amount was about three pounds. This document from Bassetlaw only states in detail what many of the other reports imply, but the detail is much more convincing, and it is confirmed by the overseers' accounts from Barnet and Elstree which we have already examined[616]. It is perhaps worth while to notice that as early as 1623 the justices wrote from Bassetlaw that work for the poor was wanting, and they even then ordered that the labourers should be set to work by the town's stock and the impotent relieved by the public contribution[617].

We have now to try to find out if it was only in a few counties that work was found for the unemployed, or if it was all over England. We have already noted that in the counties north of the Humber, and in the three western counties of Devonshire, Cornwall, and Wiltshire the poor law was apparently less well administered than in other parts of the country. In these counties with the exception of Yorkshire therefore there are few instances in which stocks are found for providing work for the unemployed. We hear however that in Ashton-under-Line there existed a "small stocke of money which is disposed on for the setting of poore to worke[618]". Moreover, in two Yorkshire reports of 1635 it is stated that the justices have been "verie carefull to raise stockes for setting ou^r poore on worke[619]." There are other Yorkshire returns containing information of the same kind, but still the plan of finding work for the unemployed of the North seems to be comparatively unusual.[620]

But with regard to the rest of England this is not the case. In every county except Northampton some justices state that they have found employment for the poor. As we might expect this was done most frequently in the towns and in the manufacturing counties, both because in these places there were more rich people and because there were also more unemployed owing to the greater fluctuations of trade.

A report from Reading and Theale illustrates this: "Wee finde that the able poore in boddy to worke and w^ch are in country villages and hambletts haue theire ymploymt in husbondrie and by that meanes are mayntayned; other lyen in such countrie townes, populer, incorporate, where heretofore multitudes of such able persons haue lived by worke from the clothier, now through the defect and decaye of that trade and soe consequently of the clothier, thousands of these poore formerlie relieved by worke liue in much want and could hardlie subsist this deere yeare did not many extend theire charity even beyond their meanes[621]." Newbury and Abingdon were also towns in the same neighbourhood subject to similar conditions, and we know already that workhouses were founded in both these places and in Reading itself also[622]. Shrewsbury and Hereford are fair examples of more westernly towns. At Shrewsbury the justices report in June 1631 that they "are aboute a course to sett all the poore on worke within our Towne and Libertyes[623]," and in 1638 an order was made for regulating a workhouse there[624]. About the same time the Mayor of Hereford records that "there is a colleccon made in euerie severall parish w^thin the said Cyttie, and competent somes raysed for to releive the impotent and needy, and a stocke for the setting of poore able people to worke and for the placeing of youth apprentices[625]." Other magistrates report in like manner: thus in the rape of Hastings they have caused the officers "as much as in them lyeth to see the said poore inhabitants bee duely kept to worke and haue fitting materialls provided for them[626]." In the hundred of Hertford the justices state in 1631 that the more populous places have already raised stocks of money to set the poor to work, and that they are still trying to induce all the others to do so though a few are not rich enough to bear the necessary taxation[627]. From St Albans, Reigate, Ipswich, Maidstone, Lynn, and Norwich, as well as from more inland towns we have similar information: the magistrates of Bedford write that "we haue raysed divers extraordenary taxes for the reliefe of our poore and settinge them on worke and therby they are set to worke[628]." But perhaps the Buckingham report indicates the most thorough organisation. There the poor had been visited apparently in the same way as at Norwich. Five hundred people were examined; the age and occupation of each were noted, and whether they had work or not. Afterwards employment was provided for those who needed it and we are told that the poor "of good disposicon are glad they are thus settled w^thout begging and settle themselves seriouslie to their labo^r." This good result however was not obtained without complaints from the ratepayers[629].

In the country districts also employment seems to have been provided as well as in the towns whenever the poor suffered much from the want of work. In the western counties, however, there were few complaints of lack of employment, except from the cloth-workers when the trade in cloth was slack. Some justices expressly state that there is no want of work in their part of the country. Thus from a large district of Somerset we hear that there are "none lefte unplaced but such as doe mainetaine their charge by their labor[630]." Therefore, as we should expect, in many reports from the West nothing is said about finding employment for the able-bodied poor. There are, however, also a fair number of cases in which work is said to be provided. This is especially the case in the counties of Shropshire and Stafford; thus from Staffordshire three reports were sent in 1634, and in all three we are told that the poor were set to work[631]. Moreover, the Worcester justices write that "wee are carefull ... that the able poore bee well provided of worke[632]" and in almost all[633] the other western counties, at least one instance of the kind is reported[634].

But in the east and south-east there was at any rate sometimes a chronic want of employment, and consequently numerous efforts to provide for the able-bodied poor. In the country round Hitchen we are told, as in the Reading district, that it is the poor in the town that are distressed, but in the hamlets the farmers find work for the inhabitants. The justices say they have no manufacture, and they do not know how to find a remedy for the people in the town. At one time they make the richer people employ the poor, but they do not find the experiment successful[635]. We have also an account of a permanent want of employment in a large district of Norfolk. In the hundreds of South Greenhoe, Wayland, and Grimshoe provision had been made by raising a stock to set the able-bodied poor to work, and besides the magistrates write, "Wee have manie young people w^ch live out of service by reason of the multitude of them, there not being services for them, but worke is provided for them in their seuerall parishes[636]."

There are very many reports of stocks for the provision of work in other country districts of the east. In Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Cambridge there is much to make us think the system was nearly general[637], and in each of the other eastern counties there are many cases of the kind.

In a district of Middlesex the unemployed were sent to fight for Gustavus Adolphus[638], but in most parishes materials were provided for them to work up. Thus in several hundreds in Kent "stocks of materialls" were provided in every parish[639]; in Nottinghamshire those out of service and able to work were set to work "on the towne stock[640]," while at Horncastle sessions, in Lincolnshire, the justices take "special care ... that the abler sort bee constantly sett on worke by the stocke of the parishe[641]." Sometimes the sum expended was very considerable if we take into account the great difference in the value of money. Thus in Wallington, Surrey, more than £120 was used for providing work, while nearly fifty pounds remained in hand[642]. On the whole therefore in the eastern counties, between 1631 and 1640, it seems that considerable sums of money were raised and employed in most districts[643] with the object of setting to work the able-bodied poor.

We have thus seen that in 1631 the improvement in the administration of poor relief concerned especially the relief of the able-bodied poor, and we have noted many instances in which taxes were raised for this purpose at that time. We have also examined a detailed report from a particular district in the county of Nottingham in which in forty-five out of sixty parishes some provision seems to have been made for finding employment for the poor. Moreover, we find that the plan of providing work for the unemployed was reported from some district of every county south of the Humber except Cornwall, Northampton, Devon, and Wilts; and in Devon and Wilts also the same plan was tried, although no report of the justices has been preserved. This form of poor relief thus seems to have been frequently in use in the towns of both east and west, and in the country districts of the eastern counties also. It was not quite so general in the country districts of the west, but still was not infrequent even there.

We may, therefore, say that from 1631 to 1640 we had more poor relief in England than we ever had before or since. We shall try to estimate later how far this system was successful. But we will now see what happened to the organisation of English poor relief during the Civil War. We will also trace the history of poor relief in France and Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in order that we may see that the history of poor relief in England is unique.