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.
3. Effect of the enforcement of the Book of Orders in the reign of Charles I.
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 wch 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.