Another dispute occurred over the case of Zachary Wannell and his wife who came lately from Wilton “into the towne of Taunton where they haue been denyed a residence and they ly upp and downe in barnes and hay lofts, the said Wannell’s wife being great with child; the said Wannell and his wife to be forthwith set to Wilton and there to continue until the next General Sessions. The being of the said Wannell and his wife at Wilton not to be interpreted as a settlement of them there.”[[157]]
There were endless examples of these conflicts often attended as in the above case with great cruelty.[[158]]
The Justices were shocked at the consequent demoralization and generally supported the demands of the labourers as regards their settlement and housing. One writes to the clerk of the Peace: “I have sent you enclosed the recognizance of William Worster and William Smith, of Bovindon, for contempt of an order of sessions ... in the behalfe of one, John Yorke, formerly a vagrant, but now parishionir of Bovingdon. Yet I believe the rest of the inhabitants will doe their utmost to gett him thence though they force him to turn vagrant againe. Yorke will be with you to prove that he was in the parish halfe-a-year or more before they gave him any disturbance, and that not privately, for he worked for severall substantiall men and was at church, and paid rent.”[[159]]
But the Justices never suspected that the rate of wages which they themselves had fixed below subsistence level was at the root of the settlement difficulty. The overseers believed that all the troubles might be solved if only young people would not marry imprudently, and they petitioned the Justices begging that overseers of parishes might not be compelled to provide houses for such young persons “as will marry before they have provided themselves with a settling.”[[160]]
While the overseers were seeking to exclude all wage earners from the parish, individual farmers, perchance the overseers themselves wanted more labourers. To meet this difficulty, the overseers discovered an ingenious device. Before granting a settlement, they required the labourer to find sureties to save the parish harmless from his becoming chargeable to it. Obviously a labourer could not himself find sureties, but the farmer who wished to employ him was in a position to do so, and thus the responsibility for the wage-earner’s family would be laid upon the person who profited by his services. Petitions against this demand for sureties came before the Quarter Sessions. One from Robert Vawter stated that he was “a poore Day labourer about a quarter of a yere sithence came into the said parish of Clutton, and there marryed with a poore Almesmans Daughter, now liveing with her said father in the Almeshouse of Clutton aforesaid, and would there settle himselfe with his said wife.” He was ordered to find sureties or to go to gaol.[[161]]
It was reported at Salford “Whereas Rich. Hudson is come lately into the towne with his wife and ffoure children to Remaine that the Burrow-reeve and Constables of this towne shall give notice unto Henry Wrigley, Esq., upon whose land he still remaynes that hee remove him and his wife and children out of this Towne within this moneth unlesse hee give sufficient security upon the paine of ffive pounds.”[[162]]
Similar orders were made re Nathan Cauliffe, his wife and three children, Robert Billingham with wife and two children, Peter ffarrant and his wife, & Roger Marland and wife. Later the record continues, “and yet the said parties are not removed” order was therefore made “that this order shalbee put in execution.”[[163]] Another step in the proceedings is recorded in the entry, “Whereas James Moores, George Moores and Adam Warmeingham stand bound unto Henry Wrigling Esq. in £20 for the secureinge the Towne from any poverty or disability which should or might befall unto the said James, his wife, children, or family or any of them. And whereas it appeares that the said James Moores hath been Chargeable whereby the said bond is become forfeit yet this Jury doth give the said George Moores and Adam Warmeingham this libtie that the said James shall remove out of this towne before the next Court Leet.”[[164]]
Fines were exacted from those who harboured unfortunate strangers without having first given security for them, and no exception was made on the score of relationship. James Meeke of Myddleton was presented “for keeping of his daughter Ellen Meeke, having a husband dwelling in another place, and having two children borne forth of the parishe.”[[165]]
Rules made at Steeple Ashton by the Churchwardens declare: “There hath much povertie happened unto this p’ish by receiving of strangers to inhabit there and not first securing them ag’st such contingencies and avoyding the like occasions in tyme to come, It is ordered by this vestrie that ev’ry p’son or p’sons whatsoev’r w’ch shall lett or sett any houseinge or dwellinge to any stranger and shall not first give good securite for defending and saving harmeless the said inhabitants from the future charge as may happen by such stranger comeing to inhabite w’thin the said p’ish and if any p’son shall doe to the contrary Its agreed that such p’son soe receiving such stranger shal be rated to the poor to 20s. monethlie over and above his monethlie tax.”[[166]]
The penalties at Reading were higher. “At this daye Wm. Porter, th’elder was questioned for harboringe a straunger woman, and a childe, vizᵗ, the wief of John Taplyn; he worketh at Mr. Ed. Blagrave’s in Early: Confesseth. The woman saith she hath byn there ever syns Michaellmas last, and payed rent to goodman Porter, xxs a yeare; her kinsman Faringdon did take the house for them. Wm. Porter was required to paye xs a weeke accordinge to the orders and was willed to ridd his tenant with all speed upon payne of xs a weeke and to provide suretyes to discharge the towne of the childe.”[[167]]