POOR RELIEF IN FRANCE, SCOTLAND, AND ENGLAND DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND COMMONWEALTH.

• § 1. Lax administration of poor relief in England during the years of Civil War.
• a. Decline of charitable institutions.
• b. Neglect in execution of ordinary law.
• c. Instances of corrupt practices.
• § 2. Attempts to regain a good organisation of poor relief under the Commonwealth.
• § 3. Reasons why disorganisation especially affected the provision of work for the unemployed.
• § 4. State of poor relief after the Restoration.
• § 5. Reasons for failure under the Commonwealth to restore the old state of things.
• § 6. History of legislation on poor relief in Scotland,
• a. Before 1597.
• b. Between 1597—1680.
• § 7. Failure of administration of poor relief in Scotland during the seventeenth century.
• a. Responses of the Scotch justices to the orders of Council in 1623 show that they were unable or unwilling to enforce the poor law themselves and left it to the kirk sessions.
• b. Inadequate poor relief granted by the kirk sessions of Banff.
• c. Relief of the poor in Aberdeen shows that the relief considered sufficient by the municipal rulers was double that which could be granted from the funds at the disposal of the kirk sessions.
• d. Infrequency of assessment in Scotland before 1818.
• e. Insufficiency of relief during the years 1692-1699.
• f. Prevalence of begging in Scotland.
• g. Reasons for the failure of Scotch administration.
• § 8. The history of poor relief in France.
• § 9. Comparison between the history of poor relief in England and that in France and Scotland.

The histories of poor relief in England after the Civil War, and in France and in Scotland throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, both compare and contrast with the history of English poor relief in the period from 1529 to 1644. While in each of these cases like circumstances produced similar attempts to afford relief, in none did both an energetic Privy Council and a vigorous system of local officials coexist, and consequently in each case poor laws were in existence but were badly administered. The course of events in all these instances will therefore confirm the view that the survival of the English system of poor relief is owing to the organisation which was enforced by the English justices and was created by the Book of Orders of 1631.

In England the justices' reports concerning the administration of the poor cease after the year 1639. After that date either no more reports were sent or no care was taken to preserve them. The cessation of these documents probably marks the time when the system created by the Book of Orders began to disappear. Other and more pressing matters engaged the attention of the Privy Council, and were subjects for the special inquiries of the judges of assize. The justices devoted their zeal and attention to raising troops or to meeting the great demands in money made by both King and Parliament, while constables and overseers were used as collectors, not only of funds for the relief of the poor, but also of the revenues needed by the armies[644]. Under these circumstances the system created by the Book of Orders fell to pieces, and the whole administration of poor relief became lax. Still the effect of the execution of the Book of Orders remained. For nine years the overseers had been drilled by the justices, and the parishioners had been compelled to pay rates. The inhabitants had become accustomed to the organisation, and that part of it continued which was most easily enforced by the overseers, and which seemed to them most urgently necessary. The impotent were still relieved, and children were still apprenticed, though less efficiently than before, but the able-bodied poor were no longer found with work, except in a few isolated cases.

We will first examine part of the evidence bearing upon the lax administration of the whole system of poor relief and some of the efforts which were made under the Commonwealth to restore the old state of things. Sometimes we hear of the disorganisation of semi-voluntary charities; at other times of the bad administration of the laws for the poor; occasionally of fraudulent practices in connection with charitable endowments.

The four royal hospitals of London are the most conspicuous instances of charities which were under public management, but only partly supported by public contributions. We get from them several complaints of a partial break-down owing to the Civil War, and the figures furnished by the Governors speak for themselves. In 1641 there were over nine hundred children in Christ's Hospital, in 1647 there were only five hundred and ninety-seven; at Thomas's Hospital, in 1641, over a thousand patients were relieved, and in 1647 only six hundred and eighty-two; at St Bartholomew's and Bridewell the numbers had also decreased[645]. The Governors of Christ's Hospital give us their estimate of the reasons for this. We are told that "in respect of the troubles of the times, the meanes of the said Hospital hath very much failed for want of charitable Benevolences which formerly have beene given, and are now ceased; and very few legacies are now given to hospitals, the rents and revenues thereunto belonging being also very ill paid by the tenants, who are not able to hold their leases by reason of their quartering and billetting of soldiers and the taking away of their corne and cattell from them[646]." A few years later the billeting had apparently ceased, but the tenants then suffered "by reason of the severall charges and taxes laid upon them[647]." Even in 1653 we are informed that the revenues of Christ's Hospital "hath divers wayes fallen very short of means formerly received, viz. heretofore many have given monies privateley, others very bountifull at their deaths. And several parishes in London have sent in large contributions and now but one that sends anything at all[648]." The Civil War had reduced many of the richer classes to poverty, and probably most institutions which were maintained by private contributions would suffer in the same manner as Christ's Hospital in London.

There are also complaints and instances of the bad administration of the ordinary law. One of these is contained in the ordinance of the Lords of 1646/7. The Lord Mayor in the City and the justices and judges in the country are to put in execution the laws concerning the poor and rogues, because "by reason of the unhappy distractions of these times the putting of the Lawes into execution have been altogether neglected[649]."

Numerous resolutions tell us that the state of the London streets had become almost unbearable. The vagrants hung on coaches and begged clamorously at the doors of churches and private houses[650]: moreover not only did men gather in tumultuous assemblies "by playing at football or otherwise," but many "loose and vagrant persons" also had been found to wander, who, "under colour of begging in the day time," did pilfer and steal, and in the night time "did break into houses and shops to the scandall of the governmente of this City[651]."

In 1652 several resolutions were passed by Parliament on the matter, and a committee was appointed to consider how the poor might be employed, to revive the laws concerning the poor and setting them to work, and "to consider by what means or default the same are become ineffectual or are not put in execution[652]."

These resolutions and these complaints at once show that the administration had become lax, and that there had formerly been a time in which these laws had "not become ineffectual," and were put in execution.

There are other cases in which there seems to have been evidence of corruption. The Chester Hospital, we are told, had been much neglected[653]; in 1653 we hear also that persons counterfeited the Letters Patent and orders of the Council of State for licenses to collect money for charitable purposes, so that people were cheated, and it was necessary to pass a special resolution of Parliament on the subject[654]. A curious instance of corruption in the administration of charitable funds appears at Barnstaple. Many sums of money had been bequeathed there as elsewhere for the purpose of enabling a young craftsman or trader to set up business on his own account. Some time before the war the town rulers found it difficult to find young men who could furnish good security, and so lent part of the money to more prosperous manufacturers, who, they said, set the poor inhabitants to work. But in 1653 the money was altogether misapplied; the Corporation bought some gold maces, found they had no funds to pay for them, and so ordered the debt to be paid with this endowment[655]. Apparently the money was never paid back, for payments on account of it cease after this time.

Any one of these instances of fraud and neglect might have occurred at any time, but so many receive official notice when peace was restored that they must have occurred more frequently during the war than at other times. A letter of this period seems to indicate the opinion of contemporaries: "You speak of feasts to relieve the poor, but it is well if the money left long since for the poor be given to them and not to feasts[656]."

As soon as the Commonwealth was fairly well established many efforts were made to relieve the poor of London. As early as 1647 a new organisation was established, named the Corporation of the Poor, which was empowered to erect workhouses and Houses of Correction[657]. Something seems to have been done by the members of this body. The store-house situated in the Minories and the Wardrobe-house were granted to them, and here orphans were maintained and many hundred of poor families were employed and relieved by the Corporation by spinning and weaving, "and," they tell us, "whosoever doth repair, either to the Wardrobe near Blackfriars, or to Heiden House in the Minories, may have Materials of Flax, Hemp or Towe to spin at their own houses if it be desired, leaving so much money as the said Materials cost, until it be brought again in Yarn; at which time they shall receive money for their work and more Materials to imploy them; so that a stock of 12d. or 14d. will be a sufficient security for any that will be imployed; and every one is paid according to the fineness or coursness in the Yarn they spin: there being a certain rule of Length and Tale to pay every one by, so that none are necessitated to live idly, that are desirous or willing to work[658]."

But the President and Corporation of the Poor were soon hindered in their work by want of funds, and were not at all successful in maintaining order in the London streets[659]. Their greatest difficulty seems to have been in 1656, and they try an interesting experiment. Many pamphlets of this century concern the fishing trade and were written to urge the English to keep it from the Dutch. Some of the writers consider the fitting out of fishing-boats the best means of setting the poor of the nation to work[660]. The plan now was actually attempted; three busses or fishing smacks were taken from the Dutch and granted to this Corporation for the purpose of employing the poor[661].

But still the help given was but small; several committees were appointed by the Council of State, but few decisions were reached; the measures of relief only concerned London and not the whole of the country, and even in London comparatively little was accomplished. In spite of the new orphanage at the Wardrobe few children were educated there, probably because no money could be got. The hymn sung by the children implores Parliament to redress the matter:

The work of the Corporation of the Poor continued, but it never seems to have been great or to have grappled seriously even with the London poor. In the rest of the country there was probably the same disorganisation, and less attempt to remedy matters. At Great Yarmouth the burgesses apparently thought that the spoils of Norwich Cathedral might be used for the purpose: they petitioned Parliament to "be pleased to grant vs such a part of the lead and other vseful materialls of that vast and altogether vseles Cathedrall in Norwich towardes building of a works house to employ our almost sterued poore and repairing our peeres etc.[663]"

There were many reasons why this disorganisation should especially affect the plans for the employment of the able-bodied poor.

Even if efforts for this purpose had been much needed after the outbreak of the Civil War it is probable that they would have been less enforced than other parts of the system of poor relief. We see from the justices' reports that schemes of this kind were not usually undertaken, except under pressure from the justices. The privation of the helpless old and young appealed far more to the sympathy of overseers and ratepayers than the needs of the able-bodied poor. Besides it was far easier to grant pensions than to superintend work and supply materials.

But a far stronger reason existed for the discontinuance of the parochial stocks for employing the poor. The necessities of the war made enormous demands upon the able-bodied males of the population. The Parliamentary army was recruited from the men above the age of sixteen and below the age of sixty. An attempt has been made to make a rough estimate of the proportion of Hertfordshire men drawn away by the war. If in 1642 the population of Hertfordshire was about one-sixth of that of the present time it would amount to about 36,000 men, women and children, and this would mean about 9,000 men of an age fit for active service. But in the summer of 1644 apparently between four and five thousand Hertfordshire men were serving in the Parliamentary army and others with the Royalists, so that a large portion of the work of the country would necessarily have to be done by women, old men and boys[664].

This calculation is very rough, but it probably approximates to the truth. We hear from the complaints of the time that much inconvenience was felt. In 1644 the Grand Jury of Hertford Quarter Sessions beg that "in regard their harvest is at hand and their labourers few to gather it, some part of their soldiers ... may be for a while recalled to assist herein." The Committee of the Eastern counties about the same time write that they have promised that some of the Hertfordshire men shall return "considering the necessity of their attendance upon their harvest[665]."

The drain on the supply of labourers might not have been so great in all districts and at all times, but it must have been considerable; the problem to be solved would therefore be to find workmen and not to find work. The difficulty of getting men is indicated by the fact that the Parliamentary army offered two and sixpence a day to a waggoner instead of the shilling or one and threepence usual before the war[666]. All who were not altogether incapable could get employment, and there would therefore be no need for the parochial stocks of materials.

We should therefore expect that the lax administration during the war would affect the schemes for the employment of the poor more than any other part of the organisation, and the evidence of many treatises published between the Restoration and the Revolution show us that this was the case. Order had been somewhat restored, and the impotent poor were then relieved, but the practice of finding work had so much fallen into disuse that its former existence was almost forgotten. Thus in a pamphlet published in 1673, called "The grand Concern of England explained[667]," the writer states that the money paid for the poor at that time amounted to £840,000 a year, and "is employed only to maintain idle persons." He proposed that instead of giving the poor weekly allowance, both old and young should be set to work at spinning, or some similar occupation. Another treatise, published in 1683, has been attributed to Sir Matthew Hale[668], and likewise shows that little was then done for the able-bodied poor. The author says, "Indeed there are rates made for the impotent poor.... But it is rare to see any provision of a stock in any Parish for the relief of the poor." The word "stock" is here used in the sense of capital for the employment of the poor, and this writer also states that the law provides that sums of this kind should be so raised. He gives many reasons for the neglect in the matter. One of these is that there was no authority in the Justices of Peace or other superintendent officials to compel the raising of a stock where the churchwardens and overseers neglected it. Both practice and opinion as to the requirements of the law had considerably altered since in 1629 the Privy Council told the justices that it was the opinion of all the judges that they both had the power and the right to levy stocks to set the poor on work, and since in 1631 the justices from all parts sent in the reports on the Book of Orders[669].

The author of a pamphlet of 1685[670] also points out that by the law of Elizabeth the parish was bound to provide "work for those that will labour, punishment for those that will not, and bread for those that cannot; and if the first two parts of that law were duly observed the Poor would not only be reduced to a small number comparatively to what they now are, but there would be no such poor as idle and wandering rogues and vagabonds." The writer further complains that work was not provided for those who will labour, but only bread both for those who can and those who cannot labour. These pamphlets thus afford abundant proof that the plan of raising a stock had fallen into disuse in the reign of Charles II., and few efforts were made to employ the poor until new workhouses were founded in different towns, each by separate Acts of Parliament.

This disorganisation, we have seen, was owing to the Civil War. It is easy to see that when the war was ended, it would be difficult to restore the old state of things because the old conditions were altered. The Privy Council after the Restoration had a much less paternal method of governing, and moreover the nation had outgrown the old methods of organisation: the Council of State of the Commonwealth did however try to restore some of the old remedies.

But under the Commonwealth the justices could no longer have been as efficient instruments for carrying out the poor law as before. Many of those who had formerly had most local influence were in banishment or disgrace; others had lost heavily by the sacrifices made for the war. Probably those who remained were chiefly interested in the more exciting political and religious questions of the time. But without an energetic Council and vigorous and powerful justices acting in sympathy with them, the administration of the poor law had been ineffectual in the reign of Elizabeth and in that of James I. We should therefore expect the same result under the Commonwealth and Charles II., except for the difference made by the ten years in which the relief of the poor had been efficient. The whole of the improvement was not lost, but enough of it to show how much the execution of the law had depended on the Book of Orders, and enough to make the poor relief granted in the years immediately preceding the war different from that of any future time.

We will now briefly glance at the history of poor relief in Scotland. Prof. Ashley has shown us that poor laws were not at first peculiarly English institutions. In every country of Western Europe like difficulties seem to have occurred at about the same time. Every one of these countries was developing in new industrial and commercial directions, and all were becoming more peaceably and quietly governed. France, Germany, Holland and Scotland were alike troubled with unemployed vagrants and unrelieved poor. The monastic houses and hospitals under the old system certainly failed to cure the evil, perhaps they only increased it. Municipal regulations and state laws dealing with beggars and almsgiving therefore appear alike in France, Germany, Scotland, and England, and at about the same time[671].

In the sixteenth century the history of poor relief in Scotland and in France is so like that of England as to suggest similar conditions or possibly conscious imitation. In all three countries it is a history of successive enactments in which the legal right of the poor to relief is created, and in which more and more pressure is employed to obtain the necessary funds.

In Scotland as in England before 1535 there are a series of vagabond acts[672], and in 1535 a statute was passed bearing a strong resemblance to those passed in England under Henry VIII. The punishments of whipping awarded to vagrants under the older Acts were continued, and no beggar was to be allowed to beg in any parish except that of his birth. New regulations were introduced with regard to funds as in the contemporary English statute; the head men of each parish were to "make takings" and to distribute to the beggars belonging to the parish and to them only[673]. Thus, as in the England of 1536, parochial responsibility was recognised, and the funds were to be raised within the parish, but without compulsion.

The next important change in Scotch legislation was made in 1574, and the provisions then made were continued and amplified in 1579. In this later statute the resemblance to the English Act of 1572 seems more than accidental. Both the Scotch and the English statutes begin with decreeing sharp punishments for vagrants, although those of the Scotch law are the more severe. But the later clauses of both statutes deal with relief, and in the Scottish enactment these are introduced almost in the words of the English regulations, "And since charity would, that the poor, aged and impotent persons should be as necessarilie provided for, as the vagabonds and strong beggars repressed, and that the aged and impotent poor people should have lodging and abyding places throughout the realm to settle themselves into," it is ordained that the provost and bailies in the towns and the justice in every landward parish shall inquire into the names and condition of the poor and impotent people born in the parish, or who have lived there seven years, and shall make a register book containing their names and surnames. And in order that every parish may know its own poor, all poor people are ordered to return to the parish where they belonged within eleven days. The provost and bailies and justices are then to provide for the sustenance and lodging of those that must live by alms; in order to meet the cost they are "to tax and stent the whole inhabitants within the parish according to the estimation of their substance, without exception of persons, to such weekly charge and contribution as shall be thought expedient and sufficient to sustain the said poor people." Overseers and collectors were to be chosen in every town and parish, and any person who refused to contribute or discouraged others from so doing was, if convicted, to remain in prison until he obeyed the order of the parish. Badged beggars were allowed in some parishes, prisoners were to be relieved and children were to be apprenticed[674].

Compulsory taxation, parochial responsibility, the authority of justices or municipal rulers, the appointment of overseers and the provision made for the impotent poor and children are like those of the English Act. But there is no regulation concerning the employment of the able-bodied poor and the clauses concerning apprentices are far more severe than those in the contemporary English statute[675].

There are other vagabond Acts in 1592 and 1593, and the Act of 1592 ordains that the Act of 1579 shall be as well executed in all parts of the realm as it has been in Edinburgh[676]. This seems to show that in Scotland as in England the statutes of this time were badly executed, but were not altogether a dead letter[677].

But in 1597 the next important change occurs. It begins by a clause which approximates the poor relief system still more to that in force in England. "Strong beggars and their bairns" are to "be employed in common work during their life times." But it concludes with a clause that separates the likeness hitherto existing between the regulations of the two countries. The execution of the law in landward parishes is placed in the hands of the kirk session[678].

Henceforward the history of poor relief in Scotland is different from that of England. In England the law of 1597, as re-enacted in 1601, remained the chief enactment for dealing with the poor throughout the century, but in Scotland, on the contrary, many alterations in the law were made; sometimes the kirk session was declared responsible for relieving the poor, at other times the justices, sometimes the heritors of the parish, were to assist the sessions, at other times the presbytery; sometimes the impotent were to be better relieved, at other times the able-bodied were to be employed in Houses of Correction[679]: statute succeeded statute in the seventeenth century as in the sixteenth, and for the most part with as little result.

Still, in spite of these many alterations, the Scotch poor law always resembled that of England in insisting on the duty of each parish to support three classes of people, (1) the aged poor, (2) the lame and blind, &c., and (3) orphans and destitute children. But the able-bodied poor of Scotland, unlike those of England, were not entitled to either work or relief. No legal provision was made for them except in Houses of Correction[680].

But during the seventeenth century even the relief given to the old and to the young in Scotland was not thoroughly administered. Not only do the frequent enactments of the legislature show that the governing class were not satisfied with the result of the existing laws on the subject, but the fact that the Scotch poor laws were on the whole ineffectual is also indicated by the response made by the justices to the Scotch Privy Council, by the hardships which the poor suffered in the time of dearth at the close of the century, and by the continued existence of beggars, licensed or unlicensed, not only in the seventeenth century but until the beginning of the present reign.

In Scotland as in England the Privy Council endeavoured to induce the justices to secure a better administration of the poor laws. But the Scotch justices possessed less legal authority than their English colleagues, while they also were less inclined either to obey the Council or to impose taxation. Consequently the efforts of the Scotch Privy Council failed while those of the English Privy Council succeeded. The effect of the Council's interference in Scotland can be seen in the events of the year 1623.

This was a time of great hardship. "Mony famileis and tennentis and labouraris of the ground who formarlie wer honnest houshalderis ... ar now turned beggaris thame selffis and of all siort of beggaris thair estate and conditioun is most miserable, becaus thay for the most pairt being eshamed to beg underlyis all the extremiteis quhairwith the pinching of thair belleis may afflict thame[681]." In consequence of this distress the Council issued an order that the destitute poor of each parish should be adequately supported, and that constables should be provided to apprehend and punish vagrants. The expense of both proceedings was to be met by a tax levied upon all the inhabitants of the district.

The replies of the Scotch justices to this order bring out the difference which existed between England and Scotland in law, opinions and practice and the consequent difficulty in enforcing in Scotland a thorough organisation of poor relief. Thus the justices of Haddington and Lothian write that in regard to the tax which was ordered by the Council for apprehending and keeping of idle beggars they "doutt if ane simple proclamatioun be ane sufficient warrand unto us to sett doun stent upoun every man"; with regard to the relief of the poor they thought the general contribution beneficial, but "becaus every contributioun is odious and smellis of ane taxatioun they could not undertak how to proceid thairin, being ane matter beyond thair capacitie[682]." The justices of Edinburgh reply that "thair is no jaillis nor warding plaices within the parochins nor touns of this sherefdome that is able to conteine a tent pairt of the pure beging in the same," order was therefore given in Edinburgh that every landed gentleman should sustain his own poor, and that the ministers should exhort their parishioners to refrain from giving alms to the able-bodied beggars[683]. Other justices arrange meetings to discuss the best means of relieving the destitution which existed; they nearly all report that it is best for the kirk sessions to "stent" their own parishioners, and for each landlord to support the poor on his estate[684].

Again in 1631 and 1632 there are signs of greater care for the poor in Scotland, and this may be due to the action of the Council, but in Scotland it seems clear that the justices left the administration almost entirely in the hands of the kirk sessions, and that the kirk sessions were not induced to enforce an adequate system of poor relief for a long term of years. Consequently Scottish poor relief remained in the seventeenth century in much the same condition as it had been in both England and Scotland in the preceding period.

In Scotland, as in both countries before 1597, assistance was given to the poor by the parochial officials, and the money was raised by collections at the church doors.

How small these contributions were may be seen from the records of the town and parish of Banff. In 1624 the condition of the poor at Banff was discussed during the visitation of the presbytery, and the "haill eldership promised to have ane faithfull cair for provisioune of thair awne poore and to purge ther bounds of vagabond beggares." No improved method of relief was reported at the next visitation, but the "minister and eldares" again promise to look after the poor[685]. In 1631, however, some arrangement was actually made. No one was to give alms to strange beggars, and the town poor were to be relieved in their homes. But, in order to secure this result, provision was made only for twenty poor, although the population of the town probably numbered nearly two thousand[686]. It seems likely that this was about the amount of assistance granted in Banff throughout the century, for in 1673 it is noted that twenty-seven poor received assistance from the kirk sessions, and in 1691 only twenty-five[687]. This relief was so insufficient that beggars abounded; in 1633 £3 6s. 8d. was paid "To Willie Wat, scurger for outhalding the poore[688]"; in 1642 vagrant beggars were to be put in the "theiffis hoill" until the magistrates had time to see them well scourged, while in 1698 and again in 1742 the system of badged beggars was adopted[689], which is itself an admission of the insufficiency of the relief afforded by the parish.

Occasionally also, as in Elizabethan England, the burgesses of particular towns saw that the poor could not live on the relief granted by the church officials, and made great efforts to raise additional funds so that they might be able to free their town from beggars. But, as the convention of Scotch boroughs stated in 1579, it was difficult to grant relief in one town only, because there were so many beggars from other parts. In Scotland, as in England under Elizabeth, the town systems of poor relief ceased to be successful after a few years. The efforts in this direction made in Aberdeen are probably fairly typical of those attempted by more philanthropic burgesses. Even in 1595 the inhabitants of Aberdeen had distributed the destitute "babis" and had levied voluntary contributions for the other poor[690]. Early in the seventeenth century, however, beggars existed who were licensed by the town[691], and in 1619 the "haill towne" was again convened, and it was agreed that all the beggars should be sustained in their homes and prevented from begging. It was estimated that the cost would amount to 2,600 marks, and £1,000 of this was to be raised "by way of taxatioun," while eleven hundred marks was to be obtained from the contributions at communion or collections at the church doors[692]. Two years later, in April 1621, we are told that "the wark hes hed a gude and happie succes so that the haill poor peopill within this burght that were then beggaris have beine now almost these thrie yeiris past interteained and keiped from begging." It was therefore then agreed that the same methods should "stand and continew" always, and that the town should continue to contribute its thousand pounds a year, that the poor might be relieved at home[693]. Why the plan failed does not appear, but it did fail, since in 1650 tickets were given to the town beggars of Aberdeen to distinguish them from those of other districts[694].

In Aberdeen, therefore, we can see that the money raised by the kirk sessions was only about half the amount which the town rulers considered necessary for the adequate support of the poor, and that when the town was kept free from beggars resort had to be made to a compulsory tax.

But compulsory taxes were very unpopular both in Scotland and England, but while in England they were forced on the people by the justices of the peace, acting under instructions from the Privy Council, in Scotland they never were generally adopted until the present century. In the report of 1818 the temporary arrangements of Aberdeen and other towns[695] were forgotten, and it was then said that before 1700 only three parishes had resorted to compulsion[696]. This means that only three parishes continued to use assessments for a long period, and therefore the poor relief granted in Scotland was almost always the voluntary assistance given by the kirk sessions.

How insufficient this assistance was is indicated by the proclamations issued during the years of scarcity at the close of the century. The period from 1692 to 1699 has been called the "seven ill years." The poor suffered great distress, and a series of proclamations was issued by the Privy Council with the object of remedying matters.

In 1692 the first proclamation was published; this stated that the Act for Houses of Correction had been neglected, and ordered the heritors and inhabitants of each parish to meet and put in execution the other good laws made for the poor[697]. In the same year a second proclamation was issued which stated that the previous order had had little effect because it was uncertain where the beggars were born and because suitable provision was not made for them in their parishes[698]. The next year therefore another proclamation was promulgated, and, it is said, "due obedience" was not yet given to the laws, "so that the poor are not duly provided for in many places nor the vagabonds restrained." In 1698 the fourth and last proclamation was published, and again it is stated that the poor laws have not taken effect, partly because there were no houses provided for the poor and partly because the people responsible for the execution of the laws had been negligent of their duty[699].

The statements of these proclamations show that little poor relief was then administered in Scotland, but a stronger proof that this was so is furnished by the existence of the misery endured by the poor during these years: this was so great that it is said whole parishes in some districts were nearly depopulated[700].

But the fact which throws the strongest light upon the administration of poor relief in Scotland is the continued existence of beggary. This was the real method by which most of the poor were relieved. Even the Town Council of Aberdeen tolerated licensed beggars, and in 1664 a resolution was passed by the synod, which shows that the licensing of beggars was then a general practice in the diocese; it is ordained that a minister should license "those creaving for support" only within his own parish[701].

In 1699 the beggars of Stirling also were licensed[702], but the existence of licensed beggars was not the worst of the evil. This method of dealing with the matter, it is true, is very strong evidence that insufficient poor relief was given because it is furnished by the administrators themselves; the beggar must be destitute, or they ought not to have given him a license, and he could hardly have been among those who were too proud to receive relief. But the districts where unlicensed beggary prevailed were in a far worse condition. How great the evil was may be seen from the evidence of Fletcher of Saltoun, who wrote in 1698. His complaints and even his language closely resemble that of Harman when he describes the English beggars under Henry VIII., and that of Hext, concerning those who lived under Elizabeth; they are in strong contrast to the self-satisfied reports of the English justices of the reign of Charles I. "There are," he says, "at this day in Scotland (besides a great number of families very meanly provided for by the church boxes, with others, who, living upon bad food, fall into various diseases) 200,000 people begging from door to door. These are not only no ways advantageous, but a very grievous burden to so poor a country, and though the number of them be perhaps double to what it was formerly, by reason of the present great distress, yet in all times there have been about 100,000 of these vagabonds who have lived without any regard or submission either to the laws of the land or even of those of God and nature.... No magistrate could ever discover or be informed which way any of these wretches died, or that ever they were baptized. Many murders have been discovered among them; and they are not only a most unspeakable oppression to poor tenants (who, if they give not bread or some sort of provision to perhaps forty such villains in one day, are sure to be insulted by them), but they rob many poor people, who live in houses distant from any neighbourhood. In years of plenty many thousands of them meet together in the mountains, where they feast and riot for many days; and at country weddings, markets, burials and other like public occasions, they are to be seen, both men and women, perpetually drunk, cursing, blaspheming and fighting together[703]."

This terrible state of things indicates clearly that no efficient system of poor relief was then in force in Scotland, and shows the evil resulting from trusting the relief of the poor to charity, when charity was altogether insufficient. It is, however, well known that in more charitable days the Scotch system of poor relief found many supporters who urged that the poor obtained sufficient help, and that the organisation which relied on charity called forth a much more noble spirit in both rich and poor than that which depended upon compulsion. This opinion prevailed especially in 1818, although even then beggary was nearly universal[704] in Scotland, but it must be remembered that in 1818 Scottish poor relief gained by comparison with the English because England was then suffering from the increase in pauperism produced by the lax rules of administration which had been introduced into her system of poor relief during the preceding twenty-five years.

But in the seventeenth century the danger was rather that there should be too little relief than too much. The citizens of Glasgow, like those of Aberdeen, introduced compulsory assessments, and said the "commendable cair" for the poor now shown was "to the glorie of God and good report of this citie"; but, in spite of this good result, altered their methods, apparently because of the unpopularity of the poor rate[705]. It is easy to see why this happened. Town governors and kirk officials were much more affected by unpopularity with the ratepayers than justices of the peace, and were much less influenced by the central government. Consequently it seems that because in Scotland the system of poor relief was not in the hands of the justices of the peace, there was no period in the history of Scotch poor relief corresponding to the years in which the Book of Orders was enforced in England under Charles I. The result was that in Scotland the poor laws though made were not thoroughly administered until the present reign.

The history of poor relief in France is very similar to that in Scotland, except that in the earlier stages French legislation is in advance of that of England.

After the middle of the fourteenth century there were vagrant laws in France and Paris as in Scotland and England. The first general measure for the relief of the poor also is almost exactly contemporaneous in all three countries. In 1536, Francis I. issued two edicts. The first ordains "that the impotent poor who have room and lodging and dwelling houses shall be nourished and entertained by their parishes, and for this purpose a register shall be made by the curÉs, vicars or churchwardens, each for his own parish," in order that these officers may distribute alms to the poor who are disabled. In each parish boxes were to be placed in which offerings were to be collected, and every Sunday, in Paris as in England, the preachers in their sermons were to exhort their hearers to contribute. Abbeys, priories, chapters and colleges were to give their alms to this box[706].

By a second edict of King Francis, issued in this year, the able-bodied poor were compelled to labour in return for their alms, and it was ordered that the ordinances made in Paris concerning the poor should be binding also in the towns of Brittany[707]. These edicts of King Francis contain almost exactly similar provisions to those of the statutes of Henry VIII., even in matters of detail.

Several other edicts between this and 1551 concern the poor, chiefly the Parisian poor. Public works were established to employ them, and efforts were made to succour the impotent poor in hospitals. In 1544 a governing body for the poor was established by Letters Patent, and the right of levying a tax or poor rate was given to this new authority[708]. But the new taxation met with much opposition, and in 1551 an ordinance was issued which bears a very close resemblance to the English statute of 1563. All the inhabitants of Paris and the suburbs were to state how much they were willing to contribute to the support of the poor. Their answers were to be laid before the Parliament, which was then to assess everyone according to his wealth. The object of the edict was to make the taxation voluntary if possible without surrendering the right of imposing compulsory payment. Even at the Revolution this contribution had not altogether disappeared, although it was too small an amount to have much[709] practical effect.

In 1566 it was again ordered that throughout France every town and every village was to care for its own poor[710]. In particular towns a good deal was done: not only were public workshops opened in Paris[711], but in 1612 new hospitals were established, and in Lyons and in certain other towns the same kind of relief was given.

But, as in England in the sixteenth century, relief was only administered in particular districts and for a short time. In France as in Scotland the history of the seventeenth century was like that of the sixteenth. Edict succeeded edict; they had some result but not much; no general system was ever established, nor were the poor ever effectually relieved. Perhaps it was impossible that laws of this kind should be executed in France because the French did not possess any county officials like the English justices of the peace. The Council might be willing to enforce the law, but the necessary machinery was wanting, and consequently in France as in Scotland poor laws were only made; they were not thoroughly administered.

The history of poor relief in France and Scotland thus seems to bring into greater prominence the fact that the English organisation is not exactly the inevitable result of the statute of 1601. Like causes led to like regulations in all three countries, but the regulations did not lead to the same result. The organisation of poor relief in France and Scotland continued in the English sixteenth century stage down to the present century. In the light of their history we can understand the preamble to the commission of 1631. The justices acted in many parts as if the poor laws were obsolete, and they were always tending to become obsolete in France and Scotland. In England that stage was passed during the ten years of the enforcement of the Book of Orders. Privy Council and justices were alike effective at the same time; the Privy Council took action, and the justices were urged to do their duty. Few officials, perhaps none, could have done the work so well. If the justices of later days granted too much relief it was because of the justices of Charles I. that relief was ever efficiently administered at all.