(1) In the earlier entries this is often directly stated to be the case. Thus we are told at Laneham that the "towne stocke" was used to buy hemp "to sett such poore on worke as wante."
(2) When a town stock is reported not to exist other methods of employing the poor are sometimes mentioned as a reason for the absence of such a stock, and thus it is implied that a town stock when it existed was used for this purpose. Thus for example at Grove they have "no towne stock in regard, theire poore are otherwise sett on worke;" at Egmonton "Towne stock they haue none because they imploy theire poore in other worke as they wante;" while at Laxton cum Morehouse there was no stock because those who wanted work were otherwise employed "by the towne."
(3) There is an earlier report from Bassetlaw sent in on July 29th, 1636. This report relates to fewer places, but in some respects is fuller. In eleven cases where only the amount of the stock is noted in 1637, the fact that it was employed to provide work is directly stated in 1636. Thus for example the following entries occur:
Askham. "Five marks stocke to sett the poore on worke." (20 marks 1637.)
Kirton. "Tenn pounds in Towne stocke wherewth the poore are sett on worke and two new howses built for them."
Clarebrough (Clarborough). "They have iiili vis viiid towarde releiueing the poore and setting the(m) on worke."
Misterton cu(m) Stockwth (Stockwith). "That their Towne stocke is Tenn pounds towards setting their poore on worke and releiveing them."
East Markham. "And that they haue 5li in stocke to sett the poore on worke." (£7 in 1637.)
Bole. "5li Towne stocke wch is imployed to sett poore on worke."
Warsopp (Warsop). "They haue in Towne stocke to sett their poore on worke xili iiijs." (£11 in 1637.)