When the Monasteries were dissolved by Henry VIII, the first authorised parochial machinery was established for the relief of the poor and for suppressing vagrancy. An act was passed authorising the head officers of every parish to receive and keep all poor applicants, putting the able-bodied to constant labour. The necessary funds were to be derived from voluntary contributions collected by the officers, and also the proceeds of stimulating sermons in the churches. But the voluntary system proved a failure, and it was left for Elizabeth to introduce the principle of compulsory taxation for this purpose. The statute 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, was kept in full operation till the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, in 1834. In the time of Elizabeth, cottage building for the poor was an object of great jealousy to the inhabitants of towns and villages, who dreaded the location of paupers amongst them, and took immense pains to "pass on" any mendicants who happened to stray within their boundary. Officers were usually appointed to "remove intruders," and these knowing "porrochials" would not infrequently offer a bribe when no other means had availed for ejecting the obnoxious tramp from a parish. By an act (31 Eliz.) it was declared that "no cottage should be erected unless there be four acres of ground of their own freehold to be continually used therewith." The operation of this statute was often attended with great 'privation and suffering to the poor, and the Sessions Rolls of this county abound with petitions and memorials to the bench on the subject. In 1612, William Dench, labourer, of Longdon, in his petition, set forth that "being destitute of habitation, and having a wife and seven small children, William Parsons, of Longdon, in charity took him to live in a little sheepcot of his in the said towne, with the consent of the churchwardens and overseers; but because yr poor orator (the usual term for "petitioner") had not licence in open Quarter Sessions, nor under the hands and seals of the lords of the manor, and because the said sheepcot standeth on the freehold of William Parsons, and not on the waste, contrary to the act 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, therefore he was indicted and is sued to an outelary (outlawry), petitions for pardon and for a licence to continue in the said sheepcot."
The Worcester County Quarter Sessions, 1660, made an order that all cottages erected since the late war should be "pluckt downe" as a "greate grievance," and that no house-room should be provided for "lusty young married people," who, if they unwisely married before they had got houses, were told to "lye under an oke." A few years previously, one Corbett, a Parliamentary soldier, settled at Bricklehampton, and purchased half-an-acre of land to build a house upon. The parishioners, it seems, were content, but the lord of the manor refused. On application to the Sessions, leave was granted to build.
Two years later, in consequence of great complaints of the country being much burdened and impoverished, the magistrates ordered that the constables should cause every parish to be surveyed and inspected as to how many cottages (and under what conditions) had been erected during the last forty years. It had also been ordered that every person apprehending a vagrant, and bringing him to a constable or tithingman, should have 12d. a piece for them—this step being considered necessary in consequence of "the great charge of wandering beggars and the efforts made in other counties to reduce them." Many persons were indicted for erecting cottages without having the necessary quantity of land attached; their cottages were pulled down, and all their little substance destroyed. Poor people were driven to herd together, great numbers in one house, or to sleep in sheds and in the open air; and thus a law which was intended to suppress mendicancy resulted in great suffering to the lower classes, and undoubtedly to the engendering of filth, disease, and crime. So scrutinizing were the precautions against a liability to support the poor, that no person who belonged to that unfortunate class could travel out of his parish into another, and accept employment and a lodging there, without a certificate from the churchwardens and overseers of his own parish that in case he should ever require relief they would take him back. The following memorials are sad pictures of poverty and suffering in the seventeenth century:
"The humble petition of the poore distressed towne of Duddeley, most lamentablie complaineth and sheweth unto your good worships that whereas heretofore wee have with our willinge duetie and bounden service acknowledged our obedience unto his majestie, and in the tyme of God's visitation upon your worships' commande did compassionatelie contribute unto the citie of Worcester, may it now please you that our poore towne havinge greivous experience of sicknesse which hath continued almost for three quarters of an yeare: and our said towne standing principallie on poore handicrafts men: who are much impoverished and now themselves wante ayde who heretofore dyd contribute to the releife of the poorer sorte and likewise wee havinge att this instant seven score children by reason of this sicknesse, who either want father or mother or both and many of these besides divers: in like or greater wante. And for that the same sicknesse doth continewe and suspected to increase unto our farther impoverishment and iminent danger of famishment of many amongst us wee havinge strayned our utmost abilitie for there succour until this instant and not able furthur to sustayne there wants doe most humblie petitionate and beseech your worship to tender our miserie and considerate our neede by collection and contribution within the countie whereby the poore will be comforted and preserved and thus for God's cause. Tendringe our humble suit to the consideration of your mercifull affections, wee in all humilitie remember ye service restinge to protest and confirme the truth hereof at your worships' command.
"RICHARD FFOLEY, Mayor.
"HENRY JACKSON, Vicar.
"RICHARD FINCH, Bailiff.
"(And a number of inhabitants.)
"Duddeley,
8th of
April, 1616.
"The consideration of this petition is referred to Sir Francis Egiock and Sir Richard Grevys, knights, who are desired to take order therein accordinge to justice."
The following petition is dated 1693:
"The humble petition of ye poore inhabitants of ye Tything of Whistones, humbly showeth, that the said inhabitants, through the greatness of the several taxes and dayley increase of our poore (to whom we pay 4s. per pound) and all manner of provision so excessively dear, by means thereof most of ye contributors to the poore are reduced so low to their very small estates and mean imployments that they are not able to mayntain them aney longer unless yr worships will be charitably influenced to redress our grievances, wee being the true objects of yr compassionate consideration; your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that yr worships would be favourably pleased to consider our necessitous condition, and either to annex and joine us unto Claynes, being our parish, to which undoubtedly ye said tything is a member and thereunto belongeth, or to order us the hundred money as formerly, or as Parshore, by some adjacent parishes to help us and ease the unsupportable burden which our shoulders have and still groan under, without which timely assistance many of our poor fellow Christians will unavoidably perish and languish through miserable hunger and want."
In the parish records of Claines (now in the churchwardens' chest of that church) an allusion to this petition is entered on one of the account books, to this effect, that upon the complaint of the inhabitants of the hundred of Oswaldslow, of the great burthen of the poor of the Tything of Whistones, alleging that the same township was in the town of Claines, an examination into the facts was intrusted to the Lord Windsor, Sir E. Dineley, and others, when the inhabitants of Claines showed that the township of Whistones was an ancient township, and had "parishtionall officers" to themselves, and was not in the parish of Claines, but anciently had its own church, and that the township was never included in the parish of Claines, and that the poor there had received relief of the hundred from time immemorial—at least from the time of King James—and never from Claines; that it had been questioned in the time of King James, but could never be shown that Claines had paid to their poor. The Court thereupon would not alter proceedings observed for so long a time, and discharged Claines from the said poor, except by paying its share as a part of the said hundred.