CONCLUSIONS.

• 1. Summary of history of English poor relief before the Civil War.
• 2. The political significance of the paternal measures of the Government.
• (a) Possible attempt to attach to the Government the poorer part of the nation.
• (b) Habitual use of proclamations and orders in Council for a popular purpose.
• 3. Success of the enforcement of the Book of Orders in the reign of Charles I.
• 4. Results of effectual administration of the poor law on English social history.
• (a) The increased communication between rich and poor.
• (b) Decrease of bitterness of competition and increase of order.

We have now traced the history of the making and early administration of the English Poor Law. We have seen that the English system of poor relief like the English House of Commons was once only one of many like institutions common to the whole of Western Europe. Although in our century other nations have again regulated the help given to the poor by public authorities, in neither France, Scotland nor Germany has the public organisation for the relief of the destitute a continuous history. The system survived in England alone among the greater nations of Europe. It began as part of the labour statutes, but the regulations of Richard II. had probably little practical effect. The administration of relief of the poor by secular authorities seems to have been first really organised under Henry VIII. by London, Ipswich, and other towns. Even after this public poor relief was not thoroughly established for more than another century.

These municipal orders were followed by statutes adopting similar regulations for the whole country. But the statutes were very irregularly enforced; they were constantly neglected, and new legislation was passed with little better result. Still the great distress of the years of scarcity of 1594 to 1597 excited public attention; men like Bacon and Raleigh joined in the discussions of Parliament and in 1597 the statutory provisions were made which remained for the most part unchanged until 1834. But the law was only well executed for a few years: good administration rather than good legislation was necessary, and it is in regard to the provision for administration rather than in regard to municipal regulations or statutory enactments that the history of England differs from that of France and Scotland.

The difference was mainly caused by the coexistence in England of a Privy Council active in matters concerning the poor and of a powerful body of county and municipal officers who were willing to obey the Privy Council.

Even in the reign of Elizabeth the Privy Council sometimes interfered in enforcing measures of relief, but only as a temporary expedient for relieving the distress caused by years of scarcity. But from 1629 to 1640 they acted continuously in this direction and by means of the Book of Orders succeeded, as far as children and the impotent poor were concerned, in securing the due execution of the law.

The Council also succeeded in inducing the justices to provide work for the able-bodied poor in many of the districts in the eastern counties, and in some places in almost every county.

This provision of work was provided either in Houses of Correction or in the parishes. In the former case it was punitive, in the latter it was given mainly with the object of enabling the unemployed to earn their living; in both cases it was often accompanied by training in a trade. It does not seem to have been designed at all as a test for the applicant for relief. The poor of the parishes were probably well known; the strange poor were all supposed to be sent indiscriminately to the House of Correction; moreover no other form of relief was granted to the able-bodied poor except when the parishes failed to find sufficient work.

The organisation was needed because it was an age of economic transition; the agricultural revolution prevented men from finding work in their old employments, while under the new industrial organisation earnings were more unstable even when they were higher than they were before.

It may be that there is a political side to the policy of Charles's Council in this matter. Dr Gardiner suggests that the adoption of this policy of paternal government may be attributed to the influence of Wentworth. "It can hardly be by accident that his accession to the Privy Council was followed by a series of measures aiming at the benefit of the people in general, and at the protection of the helpless against the pressure caused by the self interest of particular classes[712]."

There were also other members of the Council who were likely to be interested in enforcing orders for the benefit of the poorer classes. Sir Julius Caesar, the Master of the Rolls, was at that time in office. He certainly was very charitable if not very wise in his charity. He is described by Fuller as "a person of prodigious bounty to all of worth or want so that he might seem to be Almoner-General of the Nation. The story is well known of a Gentleman who once borrowing his Coach (which was as well known to poor people as any Hospital in England) was so rendevouzed about with Beggers in London that it cost him all the money in his purse to satisfie their importunity; so that he might have hired twenty coaches on the same terms[713]." It is also probable that Laud may have had something to do with the strict enforcement of the apprentice part of the law in 1633-4, for we have seen he was much interested in apprenticeship, and founded many charities for the purpose himself.

Dr Gardiner also thinks that this policy "may serve as an indication that there were some at least in the Council who in their quarrel with the aristocracy were anxious to fall back upon an alliance with the people[714]." It is very possibly not entirely accidental that the name of John Caesar is attached to a report from Edwinstree in 1639 in which the inhabitants are "well disposed in relegion, obedient to gou(ern)m^t and forward in pious and charitable accons[715]," while the district of John Hampden sent up at least one protest as to the measures of scarcity[716].

There is however possibly another political side to these orders. The measures which were designed to protect the poor from the undue rapacity of traders or from the carelessness of parochial officials were nearly all enforced by proclamations and orders in Council. Generally these orders were in accordance with the letter of the law and almost always with the spirit which had dictated the legislation; but still the fact that proclamations and orders in Council were used to enforce this popular side of government may have been designed to increase the popularity of government by this means; it certainly tended to habituate the justices to their use and to make the majority of the nation cease to regard them as instruments of tyranny.

This danger was not unforeseen at the time. A knowledge of it probably influenced the reply of the Scotch justices when they doubted if "ane simple proclamatioun be ane sufficient warrand" for levying a tax[717], but there is also a remarkable protest by John Hawarde in 1597 when he is recording the enforcement of the measures undertaken to help the poor at that time. He says that engrossers, and forestallers of corn in London were proceeded against "by the Queen's prerogative only and by proclamation, councils, orders and letters, and thus their decrees, councils, proclamations, and orders shall be a firm and forcible law and of the like force as the Common law or an Act of Parliament." The Puritan lawyer jealously notes that the builders of illegal cottages and negligent justices also were to be punished "on the proclamation and not on the statute[718]." "And this is the intent," he says, "of the Privy Councillors in our day and time to attribute to their councils and orders the vigour, force and power of a firm law and of higher virtue and force, jurisdiction and preheminence' than any positive law, whether it be the common law or statute law. And thus in a short time the Privy Councillors of this realm would be the most honourable, noble and commanding lords in all the world and [have] the majesty of prince and ruler of the greatest reverence in all the world[719]."

It is quite possible that this side of government was enforced by the orders in Council simply as a matter of convenience; it might have been difficult to pass new legislation contrary to the interests of the middle classes through a body in which the representation of those classes was so great as it was in the Tudor and Stuart House of Commons.

But if the danger of allowing the royal prerogative to be used apart from statute law was seen and protested against under the popular Queen Elizabeth, it would certainly also excite opposition in the reign of Charles I.

The substance of the orders however does not appear to have excited opposition. Men of both sides sent in their reports to the Privy Council, and more energetic measures to execute the poor law were taken in the Puritan counties of the east than in any other part of England.

The effects of the enforcement of the Elizabethan poor law and of the Book of Orders were considerable both in the reign of Charles I. and ever since that time. Harman's book, the many insurrections and riots of the sixteenth century, the letter of Justice Hext and the statements in many proclamations show us how great was the disorder in England during the reigns of the Tudors and James I. The Somersetshire justice almost unconsciously reveals the main part of the reason. Many people, he tells us, were emboldened to say, "They must not starve, They will not starve," and so the honest countryman suffered from the depredations of rogues and could hardly endure the burdens laid upon him[720]. "Maximus magister venter" quotes another writer of the period; repression did little good until it was accompanied by relief. Moreover it was impossible to enforce the repressive regulations against vagrants until relief was administered because the "foolish pity" of the inhabitants and of the justices prevented punishments from being inflicted. Throughout the sixteenth century and, after a short interval after 1597, again in the reign of James I. there are complaints of the increase of vagrants and of the disorder in the country[721].

The effect of the Book of Orders cannot be lightly estimated if we contrast the statements of Justice Hext and his contemporaries with those of the justices under Charles I. Complaints of great disorder then cease in all parts of the country except London. In many places vagabonds are said to no longer trouble the neighbourhood. In High Peak the justices state "nowe wee haue fewe or noe wanderers[722]"; at Wallington in Surrey few vagabonds are taken because now only a small number come to the hundred[723]; while at Andover there is "scarce a vagrant found about vs nor are any pickeryes com(m)itted[724]." In a few places, as at Bramber[725], the improvement is stated to be owing to the activity of Provost Marshals but in many other places it is directly connected with the Book of Orders. Thus in parts of Westmoreland we hear that there was great improvement in consequence of the enforcement of the poor law in 1638; "idle persons haue beene banished out of the countrey" and the poor of the neighbourhood were "more willing to take paynes[726]." In two divisions of Shropshire it was "rare to see a wandring person[727]," and at Appletree in Derby the overseers relieve the poor and set to work "such as are poore and yett well able to worke w^ch wee fynde doeth very much good in the cuntrye[728]." But the most decided symptoms of improvement are indicated by a report from a district of Leicestershire which reveals a state of things in strong contrast to that of Somerset in 1596. The justices record a very careful attention to the Book of Orders, especially the parts relating to setting the poor to work, teaching knitting to the young and placing out apprentices "that yong people and children may receive imployment and fittinge educacon and soe avoide idlenes and lewdenes of life." These efforts they tell us "in all partes of the cou(n)tie hath already wrought soe good effect; as that since the last Assizes to the day of the date hereof there is come into the comon gaole in the cou(n)ty of Leic. but two prisoners for two small felonyes, committed by two seu(er)all yonge people, beinge servants settled at the tyme of the offences committed[729]."

The disappearance of vagrants, the decrease of felonies and increase of order are reported as the direct consequence of the administration of the Book of Orders. Other causes may have contributed to this result, but the reports of the justices from so many places in different parts of the country are conclusive evidence that efficient relief of the poor hastened the time when the peaceable citizen and peasant could work and live in security and quietness.

This great belief in the good results of the work and of the relief afforded is very characteristic of the administrators of the time. If the system of the seventeenth century had many disadvantages when concerned with the more capable members of the community, its dealings with the poor compare very favourably with the methods possible in a freer community. The modern philanthropist may talk about being an individualist but he cannot be one. He cannot punish the idler and the drunkard as such directly and so it is rarely possible for him to aid the innocent members of a family without encouraging the guilty. Consequently he cannot deal with individuals on their merits, he can only deal with families. But in the seventeenth century the drunkard was either fined or placed in the stocks, and the idler was sent to the House of Correction. You might then help the rest of his family to find employment or have the young children taught in knitting schools and apprenticed without dangerously weakening the incentives to industry and sobriety. The direct punishment had a good effect in dealing with people for whom the community made itself responsible. It sacrificed only the individuality of the offender and not that of all his family. Consequently there was little danger in the increase of organised relief and it seems to have produced good results. The comments when we hear them are all in a satisfied tone. The Norwich magistrates were delighted with their organisation after seven years' trial and this in the reign of Elizabeth when the complaints were great in most parts of the country where little relief was given.

The stocks for the poor might be expected to operate unfavourably on the wages of unskilled labour; but there is no trace of their having done so. Wages rose during the Commonwealth it is true, but they rose also during the reigns of the earlier Stuarts and continued to rise until near the end of the century. This rise in wages seems to have been increased rather than checked by the enforcement of the Book of Orders, probably because the casual labourer had a far more depressing effect on the labour market when he wandered everywhere than when he was regularly employed by the stock of his parish. Moreover if the system affected wages at all, it would affect the unskilled labourer rather than the skilled. But after the Civil War the unskilled labourer gains relatively less: it is the more skilled forms of labour that are better paid[730]. It thus seems fairly certain that the stocks for setting the poor to work did not unfavourably influence the wages of the lower class of labourers.

The setting of the poor to work in this period cannot be judged as if it were part of the system of free competition of modern England. There was little notion of free competition; state and town interfered in wages and in the management of industry; everyone was subject to restrictions in the supposed interests of the nation, and the stocks for the poor were almost a necessary complement of this national organisation of industry. The idea of the time was to maintain a stable condition of affairs; the attempt to find employment for the poor in their slack times corresponded to the measures taken to lower prices in the years of bad harvests and to secure the interests of the employers when labourers were scarce and wages rising. Whatever effect these attempts may have had on industry as a whole they certainly lessened the immediate sufferings of the unemployed during this time of transition and they must be taken into account in any attempt to estimate the condition of the poor at the period.

So far as the temporary difficulties of the seventeenth century were concerned therefore, the system established by the Book of Orders lessened the misery of the poor and contributed to the establishment of order.

But the whole of the poor law did not disappear during the Civil War. It is true that the existing schemes for the employment of the poor were discontinued but the relief of the impotent and the care of children have continued down to our own time.

We have been so accustomed to hear of the evils of the law of settlement and the abuses of the relief granted in aid of wages, that we perhaps fail to consider the better effects of the existence of a system of poor relief.

In the first place the method of administration has helped to unite the different classes of the nation together. The rich may have known little about the poor but the country gentlemen as justices have been obliged to know something. Besides every ratepayer has suffered when any cause has permanently depressed the labouring class. All have to pay more poor rates and so are led to discuss, and if possible to remedy, abuses and grievances. In this way the evils of bad administration of relief have been checked and interest in all matters affecting the poor has been stimulated.

But the existence of the poor law may have had even more important effects.

Many are affected by the poor law who never receive relief; it takes away some of the horror of failure from all who may if unfortunate need help of the kind and so renders the struggle for existence less brutal to the whole of the labouring class.

In the seventeenth century this assistance to the poor helped to make England a peaceful community and it has probably had the same effect ever since.

The earlier centuries of our history were not distinguished by the quiet and orderly habits of the people. Whenever, as in the reigns of Henry III. and Richard II., we had little war abroad there was disorder at home. In the sixteenth century we have seen every season of scarcity produce riots, insurrections or rebellion. In 1529 Norfolk and Kent were in insurrection, in 1586 Gloucestershire was discontented, in 1596 the peasants of Oxfordshire took up arms; while in 1549 the economic distress was mainly responsible for the rebellion which caused the fall of the Duke of Somerset and nearly produced a revolution. Even in ordinary times property was not safe; bands of vagrants roamed the country who compelled the inhabitants to grant them relief; petty thefts were committed and were neither detected nor punished, sometimes robbery even was successfully attempted in open daylight and was unrepressed. In Scotland a like state of things lasted at least as late as the end of the seventeenth century and indeed much later still. Louise Michelle on her visit to England was more struck by English poor relief than by any other English institution: she said that a like system in France would have prevented the French revolution. The distress of the masses of the people and the existence of a large number of hungry men always ready to join the forces of disorder, are at all times a danger to the stability of governments. It may well be therefore that the law-abiding characteristics of the nation and the absence of violent changes in the political constitution have been at least partly due to the regular relief which has been granted under the English poor law. Ever since its provisions were first thoroughly put in execution through the efforts of the Privy Council and of the justices in the reign of Charles I. no man has been able truthfully to plead that he was driven to crime or desperation by absolute want.