THE EARLY HISTORY
OF
ENGLISH POOR RELIEF

London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.

Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
New York: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Bombay: E. SEYMOUR HALE.

EARLY HISTORY
OF
ENGLISH POOR RELIEF

BY

E. M. LEONARD,

FORMER STUDENT OF GIRTON COLLEGE.

CAMBRIDGE:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1900
[All Rights reserved.]

Cambridge:
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

TO THE

REV. WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., LL.D.

FELLOW AND LECTURER IN TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MANY KINDNESSES

I DEDICATE THIS BOOK.

PREFACE.

The present account of the early history of English poor relief is chiefly derived from the municipal records of London and Norwich and from the reports of the justices of the peace which are included amongst the state papers. Information on the subject is also contained in the Privy Council Register, while some of the orders of both Privy Council and justices and a few of the overseers' accounts are to be found in the collections of the British Museum.

A fairly effectual system of relieving the destitute by public authority has had in England a continuous existence since the seventeenth century. Attempts to found such a system of poor relief in the sixteenth century were common to most of the countries of Western Europe, but the continued existence of any organisation of the kind is peculiar to England.

Possibly this fact has an important influence on our national history. We are apt to consider the facts that we are a law-abiding people and that we have not suffered from violent revolutions to be entirely due to the virtues of the national character and the excellence of the British Constitution. But before the introduction of our system of relieving the poor we were by no means so free from disorder. The poor laws themselves were at least partly police measures, and, until they were successfully administered, the country was repeatedly disturbed by rebellions and constantly plagued by vagrants. The connection between the relief of the poor and orderly government in England appears fully during the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it may be that our legal system of poor relief has ever since contributed to the absence of violent catastrophes in our national history.

But although the continuous existence of a system of public poor relief for nearly three centuries is peculiar to England, the English organisation was at first only one of a series of similar systems which began to arise during the sixteenth century in most of the countries of Europe. Both in England and on the continent, however, poor laws were difficult to administer. On the continent they fell gradually into abeyance, and the English system of poor relief was by no means enforced simply because a poor law was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It survived almost alone among the similar organisations of the time chiefly in consequence of the policy adopted by the Privy Council in the reign of Charles I. and of the efforts made by English justices of the peace as a result of that policy.

For nearly a century before the time of Charles I., however, experiments had been made in the organisation of public poor relief. Efforts in this direction were first undertaken by the towns, and the provisions of the earlier English poor laws appear to have been modelled on pre-existing municipal regulations. The City of London was apparently the first English secular authority to organise the public relief of the poor. Collections by the aldermen at the church doors were decreed by the Court of Aldermen in 1532: compulsory taxation was levied by the Common Council as early as 1547, while the Bishop and citizens persuaded Edward VI. to grant the royal palace of Bridewell for the creation of the first House of Correction. Before 1569 legislation also had been fashioned upon these pre-existing orders and bye-laws of the towns, but neither statutes nor municipal orders were successful.

Statute succeeded statute throughout the sixteenth century; during the years 1594 to 1597, however, there was great scarcity of corn and provisions; the poor died from starvation or rose in insurrection. The whole question of poor relief was in consequence thoroughly thrashed out in Parliament. Bacon and Burleigh, Whitgift and Raleigh took part in the debates. A great committee appointed in 1597 held its meetings in the Middle Temple Hall, and there Bacon, Coke, and the most distinguished men in the House discussed at least thirteen bills on the subject. This committee finally rejected all the bills referred to them in favour of a new bill drafted by themselves which finally passed into law. This was practically re-enacted in 1601 and has remained in force until our own time as the basis of our organisation for the relief of the poor.

But the question of poor relief was not settled by statutory enactment any more than by municipal regulations. Administration and not legislation has always been the difficulty in laws concerning the poor. Until the end of the sixteenth century the history of relief in England is parallel to that of France and Scotland; there were in all three countries many poor laws but none were well administered. But in the time of Charles I. the machinery for the execution of the law is developed, and henceforward the history of poor relief in England differs from that of the neighbouring countries.

The machinery for the execution of the law is created by means of the pressure of the Privy Council on the justices of the peace. Even in the reign of Elizabeth the Privy Council had occasionally issued orders with the object of enforcing the poor law. But from 1629 to 1640 the Privy Council under the personal government of Charles I. interfered constantly and regularly in the matter. The Council attempted to provide work for the unemployed, to procure cheap corn in years of scarcity, and to regulate wages in the supposed interests of the workmen. It also established a new organisation for the ordinary relief of the poor. In 1631 the justices still neglected to execute the laws for the poor, but the Book of Orders issued in that year ordered special meetings to be held and reports to be sent to the Privy Council. Nearly a thousand of these reports remain, and in these we are told that in many districts of the kingdom the execution of the law so improved that it became part of the practice as well as of the law of the land.

Moreover the whole of the Elizabethan Poor Law was administered: work was provided for the unemployed, as well as pensions for the impotent. In most places in south-eastern England, and in some districts of almost every county, sums were levied in order that materials and tools might be furnished to the unemployed.

Thus during the personal government of Charles I. we have not only the first thorough execution of the poor law, but a more complete organisation for the help of the weaker classes than at any other period of our history.

The system thus established was successful in meeting the temporary difficulties of the time. Some Shropshire justices worked "such effect" by the execution of the Book of Orders that "there have not any rogues or vagabonds appeared amongst us or walked abroad as wee heare of since our first meetings." There were also no complaints from the impotent poor, and the unemployed were set to work. There are similar accounts from many different parts of the country which show that the administration of the Poor Law had then much to do with making England a law-abiding and orderly community.

But the outbreak of the Civil War rendered the finding of work for the unemployed less necessary, and broke up the organisation established by the Book of Orders. There are no reports after 1640, and probably the special meetings of the justices were discontinued. The whole of the poor law was laxly administered and only in a few places did this provision for the unemployed outlast the Commonwealth. Still a part of the poor law survived and has a continuous history from the time of Henry VIII. In Scotland and France either the central government was not so vigilant, or there were no efficient local officials, and in both these countries therefore regulations for the relief of the poor were issued but were not effectually executed. The English organisation alone survived, and this probably in consequence of the enforcement of the Book of Orders under the personal government of Charles I.

During my investigations I have received valuable assistance. To the Rev. Dr Cunningham of Trinity College, Cambridge, I am especially grateful for much kindly advice and criticism. I began my researches into this subject while I was a student of the London School of Economics and desire to express my obligations to Mr Hewins, the Director of the School, who first suggested the subject to me, and also pointed out to me some of the printed sources of information. I also thank Mr Hubert Hall of the Public Record Office for the ready kindness with which he has always helped me. Mr Tigny of the Norwich muniment room, Dr Sharpe of the Guildhall Record Office, and the officials of the British Museum and Public Record Office have also courteously assisted me while I was investigating the manuscripts under their care. My thanks are also due to Mr S. H. Leonard of Lincoln's Inn, Mr J. L. Burbey of Exeter College, and Miss Maud Syson of Girton College. I desire also to express my gratitude to Mr Loch, Sec. of the C. O. S., who, on behalf of the Syndics of the University Press, made several suggestions of which I have been glad to avail myself.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

THE BEGINNING OF THE SECULAR CONTROL OF POOR RELIEF.

§ 1. Anglo-Saxon times. § 2. The Labour statutes. § 3. The control of charitable funds by the state. § 4. The control of charitable funds by the towns. § 5. Summary of the main features of public control of poor-relief before the sixteenth century

pp. [1-10]

CHAPTER II.

THE CAUSES OF THE REORGANISATION OF POOR RELIEF.

§ 1. Increase of vagrants. § 2. Reasons for increase of beggars. § 3. Old methods of charity. § 4. Attempts to reorganise charitable funds on the Continent. § 5. Three factors in the making of the English system of poor relief

pp. [11-21]

CHAPTER III.

1514—1569.

POOR RELIEF IN THE TOWNS.

§ 1. Importance of municipal government in Tudor towns. § 2. London regulations for a constant supply of corn, 1391-1569. § 3. Regulations for the repression of vagrants and the relief of the poor, 1514-1536. § 4. Refoundation of St Bartholomew's Hospital and imposition of a compulsory poor rate, 1536-1547. § 5. Completion of the Four Royal Hospitals and establishment of a municipal system of poor relief in London, 1547-1557. § 6. Failure of the municipal system of London. § 7. Provision of corn in Bristol and Canterbury. § 8. Lincoln. Survey of poor; and arrangements for finding work for the unemployed. § 9. Ipswich. Survey of poor; imposition of compulsory poor rate and foundation of Christ's Hospital. § 10. Cambridge. Survey of poor and assessment of parishioners. § 11. Summary

pp. [22-46]

CHAPTER IV.

1514—1569.

THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND PARLIAMENT.

§ 1. Efforts made by the Government to secure the employment of the clothmakers during the crisis in the cloth trade of 1527-8. § 2. Regulations for the supply of the markets with corn, 1527-8. § 3. Similar action in regard to corn in 1548 and 1563. § 4. Letters of the Privy Council to particular local officials in connection with the relief of the poor. § 5. Legislation concerning the relief of the poor during the reign of Henry VIII. § 6. The two earlier statutes of Edward VI. § 7. Legislation between 1551 and 1569. § 8. Summary

pp. [47-60]

CHAPTER V.

REVIEW OF THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POOR RELIEF, 1514—1569.

§ 1. The action of municipal rulers precedes the action of Parliament. § 2. Advantages of the municipal system of relief. § 3. Connection between the municipal organisation of poor relief and the dissolution of the monasteries. § 4. Relation of beggary to the first schemes of relief. § 5. Parental government. § 6. Bridewell, the key-stone of the system

pp. [61-66]

CHAPTER VI.

1569—1597.

PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

A. Parliamentary History. § 1. Discussions, Bills and Statutes between 1566 and 1576. § 2. Parliamentary history between 1576 and 1597. § 3. The Bills and Statutes of 1597. § 4. General features of the discussion in Parliament. B. The action of the Privy Council. § 5. The chief characteristics of the action of the Privy Council. § 6. The whipping campaign. § 7. The scarcity measures. § 8. The influence of the Privy Council on county and municipal officials

pp. [67-94]

CHAPTER VII.

1569—1597.

THE MEASURES OF THE TOWNS AND THE EVENTS OF THE YEARS 1594-1597.

§ 1. The organisation of London with regard to the poor. § 2. The organisation of Norwich. § 3. The action of other towns (1) concerning the settlement of new comers; (2) concerning the unemployed; (3) concerning the raising of funds. § 4. The events of the years of scarcity 1594-1597. § 5. Summary of the period 1569-1597

pp. [95-131]

CHAPTER VIII.

1597—1644.

PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

§ 1. Characteristics of the period. § 2. Legislation from 1597 to 1644. Administrative machinery. § 3. Action of the Privy Council before 1629. § 4. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the provision of corn. § 5. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the unemployed. § 6. The Book of Orders as a whole and the royal commission of 1630/-1. § 7. Interference with wages as a method of helping the poor. § 8. Summary

pp. [132-164]

CHAPTER IX.

1597—1644.

THE LOCAL MACHINERY FOR ADMINISTRATION.

§ 1. Powers of the justices. § 2. Work of the justices in first putting the law in execution (a) in the West Riding during 1598, (b) in the North Riding during the years immediately following 1605. § 3. Reports of the justices in response to the Book of Orders. § 4. The work of the judges: (a) Authoritative decisions on points of law; (b) Administrative work as the link between the Privy Council and the justices. § 5. The work of the overseers (a) in 1599; (b) when stirred to greater activity by scarcity measures; (c) after the issue of the Book of Orders

pp. [165-183]

CHAPTER X.

METHODS OF RELIEF, 1597—1644.

A. In times of emergency.

§ 1. The methods by which the scarcity orders of the Privy Council were executed in 1623 and 1630-1: (a) the suppression of alehouses and restriction of malting; (b) the regulations for serving the markets with corn; (c) selling corn to labourers under price; (d) other methods of providing food for the poor. § 2. Evidence as to the success or failure of the corn regulations. § 3. Reasons for adopting them. § 4. Bearing of the scarcity measures on the history of poor relief, (a) because of the growth of organisation; (b) as an indication of the standard of life of the poorer classes. § 5. Provision of fuel for the poor in winter. § 6. Help afforded in times of plague and sickness. § 7. Contributions to sufferers from fire. § 8. Two characteristics of seventeenth century poor relief: (a) little distinction between paupers and non-paupers; (b) little distinction between relief afforded by voluntary contributions and that provided by poor rates

pp. [184-205]

B. Ordinary relief.

α. Impotent Poor. § 1. Almshouses and endowed charities. § 2. Relief for the old from county and parochial rates. β. Children. § 3. Apprenticeship. § 4. Schools for little children and orphanages. γ. Able-bodied poor. § 5. Relief given to prisoners. § 6. Provision of funds to provide work for the unemployed. § 7. Methods of providing work: (a) Stocks used to employ the poor in their homes; (b) Introduction of new trades; (c) Workhouses and Jersey schools; (d) Bridewells; (e) Emigration; (f) Pressure on employers; (g) Advancement of capital without interest

pp. [206-236]

CHAPTER XII.

1597—1644.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW AS A WHOLE.

§ 1. Importance of the period 1597—1644. § 2. Negligent administration of the Poor Law in the North and extreme West. § 3. Administration in the rest of England varied with the action of the Privy Council. § 4. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1597 and 1605. § 5. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1605 and 1629. § 6. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1629 and 1644. § 7. Improvement effected in 1631 especially concerned the unemployed. § 8. Detailed report from Bassetlaw. § 9. Provision for the unemployed (a) in the North and extreme West; (b) in the towns; (c) in the Western counties; (d) in the Eastern counties. § 10. Summary

pp. [237-266]

CHAPTER XIII.

POOR RELIEF IN FRANCE, SCOTLAND, AND ENGLAND DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND COMMONWEALTH.

§ 1. Lax administration of poor relief in England during the years of Civil War. (a) Decline of charitable institutions; (b) Neglect in execution of ordinary law; (c) Instances of corrupt practices. § 2. Attempts to regain a good organisation of poor relief under the Commonwealth. § 3. Reasons why disorganisation especially affected the provision of work for the unemployed. § 4. State of poor relief after the Restoration. § 5. Reasons for the failure to restore the old state of things during the Commonwealth. § 6. History of legislation on poor relief in Scotland (a) before 1597; (b) between 1597—1680. § 7. Failure of administration of poor relief in Scotland during the seventeenth century. (a) Responses of the Scotch justices to the orders of Council in 1623 show that they were unable or unwilling to enforce the Poor Law themselves, and left it to the kirk sessions; (b) Inadequate poor relief granted by the kirk sessions of Banff; (c) Relief of the poor in Aberdeen shows that the relief considered sufficient by the municipal rulers was double that which could be granted from the funds at the disposal of the kirk sessions; (d) Infrequency of assessment in Scotland before 1818; (e) Insufficiency of relief during the years 1692—1699; (f) Prevalence of begging in Scotland; (g) Reasons for the failure of Scotch administration. § 8. The history of poor relief in France. § 9. Comparison between the history of poor relief in England and that in France and in Scotland

pp. [267-292]

CHAPTER XIV.

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 the effectual administration of the Poor Law on English social history

pp. [293-304]

APPENDICES.

ERRATA AND CORRIGENDA.

P. [50], n. [106]. For Amysbury read Amesbury, for Boscum read Boscombe, for Alyngton read Allington and for Fiddelldene read Figheldean.

P. [102], n. [224], p. [106], n. [234], p. [142], n. [316] for Maiores Booke for the Poore read Maioris Bocke for the Pore.

P. [118], l. [18]. For Twiford read Twyford.

P. [168], l. [10]. For Arkesey read Arksey.

P. [169], n. [384]. For Dewisburie read Dewsbury, for Shelfe read Shelf, and for Northowrom read Northowram.

P. [170], n. [387]. For Thirske read Thirsk.

P. [173], l. [22]. For Fropfield read Froxfield.

P. [214], n. [510]. For Easbie read Easby.

Note. P. [141], n. [312]. The decision of Lord Romer was reversed by the Court of Appeal on March 7th, 1900; it was decided that the Guardians were not entitled to relieve the colliers during a strike.

THE EARLY HISTORY OF ENGLISH POOR RELIEF.

CHAPTER I.

THE BEGINNING OF THE SECULAR CONTROL OF POOR RELIEF.

• 1. Anglo-Saxon times.
• 2. The Labour Statutes.
• 3. The regulation of charitable funds by the state.
• 4. The control of charitable funds by the towns.
• 5. Summary of the main features of public control of poor relief before the sixteenth century.

Introduction.

The English system of Poor Relief presents a striking contrast to the rest of our national institutions. In most departments of our social organisation, public control is less extensive in England than in the other countries of Western Europe. But, in regard to the relief of the poor, we have adopted an opposite policy. Since the reign of Charles I., Englishmen have made themselves responsible for the maintenance of those who are destitute. All, who cannot obtain food or shelter for themselves or from their nearest relatives, have a right to relief from compulsory rates levied upon the rest of the community.

It will be our object, in the following pages, to trace the growth of this system. We will examine the causes which led the public authorities of state and town to control the relief of the poor, and the steps which they took to render its administration effective and successful. There can be no doubt, that an organisation of this kind was not suddenly imposed by a single Act of Parliament. Under Henry VIII., the first enactment was passed ordering the regular collection and distribution of alms for the relief of the poor[1], but it was not until forty years later that the amount to be paid by each individual was assessed and its payment compulsorily enforced[2], while even after ninety years had elapsed, the English organisation of poor relief was still irregularly carried out and of little practical effect[3]. Like other and more famous English institutions, the making and administration of the English Poor Law was a growth, not a creation. It was during the sixteenth and early part of the seventeenth centuries that the chief experiments were made in methods of relieving the poor by secular public authorities. But, even before that time, the beginnings of the later organisation may be traced both in the provisions of the statutes and in the regulations of the towns.

1. Anglo-Saxon times.

We will now briefly consider the chief ways in which public secular authorities interfered in the relief of the poor before the sixteenth century. In Anglo-Saxon times, the administration of poor relief was almost entirely under the control of the Church. Almsgiving and hospitality were however inculcated as religious duties of considerable importance, and there is much to make us think that they were extensively practised by Anglo-Saxon kings and noblemen. Bede tells the following story of King Oswald. He was about to dine sumptuously from a silver dish of dainties one Easter day, when the servant who distributed relief to the poor came before him, and told him that there were many needy persons outside the gate, who were begging some alms of the king. The king left the dish untasted and ordered the contents to be carried to the beggars[4]. This story incidentally lets us see that a distribution of alms and a special servant for the purpose were part of the regular organisation of the household. King Alfred also, we are told, "bestowed alms and largesses on both natives and foreigners of all countries[5]," and it was the custom of the Anglo-Saxon kings to keep open house for several days and to entertain all comers three times a year, at Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide.

But the greater part of the relief of the time was administered by ecclesiastics. Some help was given to the poor in famous abbeys like those of Ely, Croyland and Glastonbury[6], and there were the offerings distributed by the priests. The nearest approach we have to state interference with the relief of the poor is found in the law of Ethelred, which probably enforced the existing custom with regard to tithe. One third part "of the tithe which belonged to the Church" was to be given to "Gods poor and needy men in thraldom[7]."

But, from the beginning of the thirteenth century, we find greater activity in the matter. Two causes seem to have influenced the secular public authorities of the time to interfere; first, the desire to repress vagrants, and secondly, the wish of state and town to control some of the charitable endowments.

2. Labour statutes.

Many of the regulations, made with the object of repressing vagrants and able-bodied beggars, were closely connected with the statutes concerning labour, enacted from the middle of the fourteenth century onwards.

After the Black Death of 1348-9, labourers were scarce and wages rose rapidly; a series of enactments was therefore passed, designed to force every able-bodied man to work, and to keep wages at the old level.

In the first regulation of this kind, the Ordinance of Labourers of 1349, the first step is taken towards the national control of poor relief. The proclamation restrains the liberty of the giver; the private individual may no longer give to whom he chooses. It is provided that no one is to give relief to able-bodied beggars, and the ground of the prohibition is expressly stated to be "that they may be compelled to labour for their necessary living."

The first provision of funds for the relief of the poor made by law, is embodied in one of the same series of labour statutes. The wages of priests were regulated and it was ordered that the fines of those parishioners who paid more than the statutory rate, should be given to the poor[8].

Almost as soon as these labour statutes were passed, we hear that labourers fled from county to county in order to elude the operation of the law[9]. The workmen adopted many devices, in order to escape from any part of the country where these regulations were enforced. Some seem to have pretended to be crippled and diseased, and so, when undetected, could wander and beg with impunity. Others, apparently, joined bands of pilgrims, like the famous travellers from the Tabard to Canterbury, and, journeying with them, would reach a district, where they could obtain good wages and be undisturbed by the execution of the labour laws. In 1388, therefore, regulations were made, restricting the movements, not only of able-bodied beggars, but of all beggars and of all labourers and, at the same time, admitting the right to relief of those who were unable to work for themselves[10]. Servants who wished to depart from the hundred in which they lived, under colour of going a pilgrimage, or in order to serve or dwell elsewhere, were to have a letter, stating the cause of their journey and the time when they were to return, duly signed by the "good man of the hundred" appointed for the purpose. If they were found away from their district, without a letter of this kind, they were to be placed in the stocks and kept there, until they found surety to return to their own neighbourhood. However, a servant who had a certain engagement with a master in another part of the country, was always to be allowed to have a letter, allowing him freely to depart. Thus the statute prevented a man from wandering about in search of work, but did not prevent him from migrating, when an engagement was already concluded. All these regulations affected beggars: an able-bodied beggar who begged without a letter was to be put in the stocks in the same manner as a labourer without a letter. He could not escape by pretending that he was a labourer, because both were liable to punishment. Neither could he elude the vigilance of the law, by pretending to be disabled, because the impotent poor also were forbidden to wander; they were to stay where they were at the passing of the Act, or, if the people there were unable to support them, were to go, within forty days, to other towns in the same hundred or to the place where they were born.

This statute is often regarded as the first English poor law, because it recognises that the impotent poor had a right to relief, and because it carefully distinguishes between them and the able-bodied beggars. The provisions also imply the responsibility of every neighbourhood for the support of its own poor. Moreover, this enactment may be regarded as a law of settlement. Not only were the impotent poor confined to their own district, but all unlicensed labourers were likewise forbidden to migrate. Probably the Act had little effect because it was too stringent to have been enforced.

Not only Parliament, but the municipal rulers also, made regulations for the restraint of vagabonds. The authorities of the City of London, in 1359 and in 1375, forbade any able-bodied person to beg, and at the end of the fifteenth century the constables were ordered to search, not only for the vagabonds themselves, but also for the people who harboured them[11].

Two statutes relating to beggars and vagabonds were passed in the reign of Henry VII.[12], but in both the severity of the punishment was decreased, because the king wished by "softer meanes" to reduce them to obedience. The decrease in the severity of this punishment seems to show that there was as yet little sign of the crowds of vagrants, who were a terror to the country under Henry VIII. So far the wanderers were men who had no difficulty in obtaining work, but who wanted better terms. Under Henry VIII. they include also unemployed labourers, and the legislation dealing with them concerns the provision of work for the able-bodied as well as assistance for the impotent poor; still the regulations concerning vagrants were already connected with the relief of the poor because the efforts made to keep at work the valiant beggars had made it necessary to distinguish between them and the old and disabled, and had led to some provision being made for those really unable to help themselves.

3. Control of charitable endowments by the State.

But there was another cause for the public regulation of the relief of the necessitous. From the thirteenth century onwards there are signs that men had ceased to leave charitable endowments entirely in the hands of ecclesiastics. A growing desire was felt, that Parliament and Town Governments should share in the administration of some of the funds for the relief of the poor.

We find indications of this both in the statutes and in the action of the burgesses. Almost at the same time that the statute of 1388 ordered beggars to remain in their own neighbourhood, another statute of Richard II. was passed which regulated the revenues of the Church in the interests of the poor. A portion of the tithe had been commonly distributed by the resident rector to the poor[13], but, when a living became part of the possessions of a monastery, the poor parishioners were often forgotten. In order therefore that the parishioners might not be injured, this enactment provided that when the revenues of a living were appropriated by a monastery, a portion of the revenue should be assigned to the poor, so that they might not lose the alms formerly distributed by the rectors[14]. Under Henry IV. this statute was re-enacted, and it was ordered that appropriations made since the 15 Rich. II. should be reformed[15]. The earlier statute had thus probably not been well observed: the second was apparently more successful, for in The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors, written in 1542, it is stated that "if the personage were improperd, the monkes were bound to deale almesse to the poore and to kepe hospitalyte as the writings of the gyftes of such personages and landes do playnly declare[16]." In any case this legislation indicates a desire on the part of the state to interfere, in order to reform the administration of ecclesiastical revenues in the interest of the poor.

4. Control of charitable endowments by the town.

In the towns also, the civic governors and the guilds began to control some of the endowments for the relief of the poor. Even in Anglo-Saxon times, the distribution of alms formed part of the functions of the guilds, and it is not unlikely that it was partly owing to customs formed by the municipal rulers through their association in guilds that the towns began to take an active part in the administration of poor relief. Thus at Lynn, one of the ordinances of the town guild provided that relief should be given to any brother in poverty, either from the common fund or from the private purses of the guild brothers. A piece of land was bequeathed to the guild, partly for the purpose of relieving the poor, and, we are told, £30 a year was distributed to the poor brethren, to blind, lame and sick persons, and for other charitable purposes. The whole charity distributed by this association must have been considerable, for though only four great meetings of the guild were held during the year, one of these was especially concerned with the management of its charities[17]. At Sandwich also[18], the burgesses or the town rulers controlled the two hospitals dedicated respectively to St Bartholomew and St John. Both were virtually almshouses providing for a certain number of old people. The Mayor and Jurats of Sandwich, not only appointed the governors of St Bartholomew's, but audited the accounts, controlled the management and appointed new recipients of the charity. The whole was connected with an annual festal procession to the hospital in which many of the townsfolk took part[19].

At other times, the municipalities, not only exercised control over institutions founded by private people, but also themselves contributed to the endowments. At Scarborough, Henry de Bulmer gave a site for St Thomas hospital which was finished and endowed by the burgesses[20]. At Chester the town gave land, on condition that certain almshouses were built[21]; and Ipswich in 1469 granted the profits of St James' fair to the lazars[22]. At Lydd, sums were given for "Goderynges dowghetyr, pour mayde, for hosyne, shoys and other thyngses" and payments were made for her clothes and keep on several occasions[23]. In this town also gifts of corn were regularly distributed at Easter and Christmas from 1439 onwards[24]. In most of the great towns the Chamberlain was the especial guardian of orphans[25], and sometimes there was a Court of Orphans in which matters affecting the property of orphans were managed. The arrangement rather concerned orphans with property, than the poor, but still it shows that the municipality recognised a responsibility with regard to a helpless class of the community.

The municipal authorities at Southampton, however, undertook much more extensive measures for preventing want, and it is interesting to notice that this action was very probably undertaken in consequence of the customs of the ruling guild. In ordinances at least as early as the fourteenth century forfeits and alms were awarded to the poor, and members were to be assisted when in poverty. In the fifteenth century "the townys almys were settled on a plan," and lists were kept of the weekly payments. The Steward's book of 1441 states that the town gave weekly to the poor £4. 2s. 1d. which, according to the value of money at the time, might have furnished relief for about one hundred and fifty people[26].

5. Summary.

Thus, before the sixteenth century, state and town had begun to make regulations for the relief of the poor. Some of these regulations were dictated by a desire to repress vagrants. They were closely connected with the enforcement of the labour legislation of the time, and were embodied in the same statutes, and administered by the same officials. But other provisions were due to the fact that there was a growing tendency for the state to interfere to prevent the maladministration of ecclesiastical revenues, and for non-ecclesiastical bodies to undertake the administration of charity. Still, before the sixteenth century, most of these measures were negative rather than positive. The orders concerning the repression of sturdy beggars were more prominent than those concerning the relief of the poor. The latter were as yet infrequent and had little practical effect. The main part of the charity of the time was still administered by ecclesiastics and was obtained from endowed charities and from voluntary gifts.

But, in the sixteenth century, the older methods of relief failed to cope with the new social difficulties, and the older feeling in favour of the ecclesiastical control of charity was considerably lessened. At the same time, the tendencies that already led to the management of relief by public secular authorities were accentuated. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, therefore, the organisation of poor relief was more and more undertaken by municipality and state, and the English system of poor relief was created and first administered.

CHAPTER II.

THE CAUSES OF THE REORGANISATION OF POOR RELIEF.

• 1. Increase of vagrants. (1) Harman's description of vagrants in England. (2) Bands of vagrants on the Continent.
• 2. Reasons why men became beggars. (1) The destruction of the feudal system destroyed employments furnished by war and service. (2) Manufactures on a large scale less stable than old occupations. (3) Rise of prices affected food earlier than wages. (4) In England enclosures were made because sheep were more profitable than corn.
• 3. Old methods of charity. (1) Private individuals. (2) Monasteries. (3) Hospitals.
• 4. Attempts at reorganisation on the Continent.
• 5. Three factors in making of English poor relief: (1) the orders of the towns; (2) the regulations of the statutes; (3) the efforts of the Privy Council to secure the administration of adequate relief. Three periods in the history of the first making of the English system: (1) 1514-1569; (2) 1569-1597; (3) 1597-1644.

The earlier years of the sixteenth century began a period of great changes in the position of the poorer classes, and these changes soon resulted in a series of attempts to reform and reorganise the whole system of poor relief.

1. Increase of vagrants.

(1) Harman's description of the bands of vagrants in England.

The desire to repress vagrants had already led state and town to make regulations concerning the relief of the poor, but whereas, before the sixteenth century, beggars were only an occasional nuisance, they now became a chronic plague. The great increase in the numbers of these vagabonds appears to have begun early in the reign of Henry VIII. Thomas Harman, a gentleman of Kent, in about 1566, wrote an elaborate description of twenty-three varieties whom he had found to be in existence[27]. One of his anecdotes shows that they were already numerous soon after the execution of the Duke of Buckingham in 1521[28]. A man of some importance, he states, died about this time, and crowds of beggars attended the funeral. Some of them were poor householders and these returned to their homes at night. But the others were sheltered in a large barn which, on being searched, was found to contain seven-score men and at least as many women. The bands of these wanderers continued to increase, for Harrison, in his Description of England, tells us, "it is not yet full threescore yeares since this trade began: but how it has prospered since that time it is easie to judge, for they are now supposed, of one sex and another, to amount to above 10,000 persons[29]."

Harman's description of this "rowsey ragged rabblement of rakehelles" shows that some sort of organisation existed amongst them. He prints a slang dictionary of thieves' language, and states that this had been in existence for thirty years: he also gives an account of their order of precedence, thus showing that many degrees of roguery were recognised by the rogues themselves.

We can see from his account of their pranks, that they were both cunning and daring, and were often a great hardship to the honest citizens of the poorer classes.

Not only did they break into houses by night and pilfer the pigs and the poultry, but they were daring enough to pass a hook through the windows and draw the clothes off sleeping men; to rob men on the highway who were travelling home from fairs, and to come by night to lonely houses and force the owners to deliver up what money they had on the premises. Harman's tale on this point may illustrate the dangers of the situation.

One night two rogues went to an inn, and sat down and drank merrily, offering the pot to those of the company they fancied. Amongst others, a priest was there, and when he had gone they began to make inquiries of the hostess concerning him, saying they were nephews of a priest in this neighbourhood and had not seen him since they were six years old. She, suspecting no harm, gave them all the information they wanted; told them the parson kept little company and had but one woman and a boy in the house. The thieves departed with the intention of robbing so defenceless a prey, but they found that his house was built of stone and his windows and doors well fastened. They thought force would avail little, and therefore tried fraud. One of the rogues, with piteous moans, asked for relief, and the parson, being moved by his distress, put his arm out of window to give him twopence. The rascal seized, not the twopence, but the priest's hand, and his companion secured his wrist also, so that their victim could not liberate himself at all. The rogues demanded three pounds and succeeded in obtaining four marks which was all the poor man had in the house. They bound him, therefore, also to drink twelve pence next day at the inn and to thank the good wife for the cheer they had had. The unfortunate parson could only use "contentacion for his remedy," but he kept his promise, and the hostess persuaded him to say no more of it "lest when they shal understand of it in the parish they wyll but laugh you to skorne[30]."

(2) Vagrants on the Continent.

This plague of vagrants was not, however, peculiar to England, but arose about the same time in all the countries of Western Europe. A book that somewhat resembled Harman's appeared in Germany as early as 1514[31]; this contained both an account of the different orders of vagabonds and also a "Canting Dictionary." Martin Luther often discussed the subject of beggars, and in 1528, wrote a preface to this very book[32]. In Germany, therefore, the increase in the number of beggars seems to be even earlier than in England. In Scotland and the towns of the Netherlands the statutes and town ordinances show us that the same trouble assailed them about the same time, and France in 1516 was already troubled by large numbers of discharged or wandering soldiers[33].

2. Causes for the existence of these bands of beggars.

(1) The break-up of the feudal system and consequent lessening of employment in war and service.

As these bands of vagrants were found in so many countries at once, the principal causes for their existence cannot be peculiar to England, or to any one country, but must be common to all the countries affected. It was closely connected with lack of employment: the difficulty had been for the masters to find workmen, the problem was now for the men to find work, and this in spite of the fact that at the beginning of the sixteenth century commerce and manufactures were rapidly extending. The age was a time of transition, and old occupations were becoming unnecessary. The feudal society of the Middle Ages was giving place to the modern industrial and commercial community. War, public and private, and service with great nobles had formerly occupied large numbers of the male population. But the fifteenth century had witnessed the growth of central authorities strong enough to preserve order and to control the power of the great lords. In Germany, the towns were growing in importance and had often become independent of feudal superiors; in France, Louis XI. had overcome the last serious opposition of the French barons to the growth of the royal authority, while in England, the Wars of the Roses and the policy of Henry VII. had combined to break the power of the English nobility. Order had given place to disorder, lawsuits had succeeded private wars. The power of the nobles was no longer maintained by force; they had no longer the need of many followers to fight their battles. The oft-quoted saying of the chieftain with reference to the Highlands in the last century might be applied with little variation to the position of the nobles under Henry VIII. "When I was a young man the point upon which every Highland gentleman rested his importance, was the number of men whom his estate could support, the question next rested on the amount of his stock of black cattle, it is now come to respect the number of sheep and I suppose our posterity will inquire how many rats and mice an estate will produce[34]." Power in the Highlands then, and in England at the beginning of the sixteenth century, passed from the leaders of men to the holders of wealth. This revolution in the basis of power had a considerable effect upon the labour market. The chief occupation of the Middle Ages had become unnecessary; men whom the nobles had formerly been glad to enlist had now to seek other means of earning a livelihood. Moreover, the employment which had now disappeared was one which especially afforded an outlet for men of restless character, the kind of people who under adverse conditions became the sturdy vagabonds of the sixteenth century. Sir Thomas More expressly states that the English thieves of the time were often discharged retainers[35], and many of the later idlers would doubtless be men who would have followed this occupation, if it had been open to them before they took to their wandering life.

(2) Manufactures on a large scale less stable than old occupations.

No doubt the growing commerce and manufactures afforded employment in course of time to many more than those now displaced by the decrease of private and public war, but this very increase of manufacturing industry had effects of its own in increasing the numbers of the unemployed. In the first place, the peaceful life of the craftsman was favourable to the growth of population, and in the second place, the new occupations were less stable than the old industries had been. The simple manufactures necessary for the home market varied little; in bad times the craftsman might get a little less work, but he was not thrown utterly out of employment. But after great manufacturing centres came into existence and their produce began to be exported to other lands, the inhabitants of whole districts would have little or no work through no fault of their own. The great English manufacture of the time was cloth, and crises in this trade occurred both when Wolsey wanted to make war on the Netherlands and when the merchants wished to prevent the exactions of Charles I. We shall see that the misery of the inhabitants in the English cloth-making districts had much to do with stimulating the growth of an administrative system for poor relief.

(3) Rise of prices affecting food earlier than wages.

Later on in the sixteenth century, another cause tended to increase the hardships of the poor, and so necessitated new methods of poor relief. The influx of silver from the New World caused a general rise of prices. Food and clothing and rents rose more quickly than wages, so that the poor could obtain fewer of the necessaries of life[36]. The debasements of the English coinage, by Henry VIII. in 1527, 1543, 1545 and 1546, and by Edward VI. in 1551, still further increased this evil in England, and during the transition the poorer classes must have been the chief sufferers.

The effects following the break-up of the feudal system, the increase of manufactures, and the rise of prices owing to the influx of silver were in no way peculiar to England: they account quite as much for the bands of vagrants on the Continent as for those of this country.

(4) In England sheep were more profitable than corn.

But one cause of distress affected England more than the other countries of Europe. It had become more profitable to breed sheep than to plough the land, and England was the great wool-producing country of the world. Men, who had cultivated the soil, were evicted in order that sheep-runs might be formed, and thus agricultural labourers and small yeomen helped to swell the crowds of the unemployed.

3. Old methods of charity:

The existence therefore of the crowd of vagrants can be accounted for by the social and economic changes of the time, but it was none the less dangerous on that account. The public authorities of state and town began, early in the century, to make more frequent orders for their repression, but it was soon clear that these orders could not be effectual unless the relief of the poor were better organised.

(1) Private individuals.

For the most part charity was administered still either by private individuals or ecclesiastical officials. We can form some idea of the methods of private donors from Harman's description of Elizabeth, Countess of Shrewsbury, to whom he dedicates his book. In his address to her he says, he knows well her "tender, pytyfull, gentle and noble nature; not onelye havinge a vygelant and mercifull eye to your poore, indygente and feable parishnores; yea, not onely in the parishe where your honour moste happely doth dwell, but also in others invyroninge or nighe adioyning to the same; as also aboundantly powringe out dayely your ardent and bountifull charytie upon all such as commeth for reliefe unto your luckly gates." No wonder the writer thought it was his "good necessary" and "bounden duty" to acquaint her with the "abhominable wycked and detestable behavor" of some of those rogues who "wyly wander, to the utter deludinge of the good gevers, decevinge and impoverishinge of all such poore householders, both sicke and sore, as neither can or maye walke abroad for reliefe and comfort, where, in dede, most mercy is to be shewed[37]."

Stow tells us, that he had himself seen two hundred people fed at Cromwell's gate, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink, "for he observed that ancient and charitable custom, as all prelates, noblemen or men of honour and worship, his predecessors had done before him[38]." This open-handed hospitality thus seems to have been the custom of the time, and if exercised, without discrimination and supervision, would tend to foster the increase of idle beggars and do little to lessen the hardships of the industrious poor.

(2) Monasteries.

The methods of distributing charity employed in the monasteries were little better. It is true that the services rendered by the monks and nuns to education were considerable, and that a number of old people and children were maintained in some of the religious houses. Lodging also was given to wayfarers, and thus a very useful function was fulfilled in countries where there were few inns and no casual wards. But much of the relief given to the poor by the monks seems to have been distributed in a similar manner to that of the Countess of Shrewsbury. Alms were given to the poor at the gates: many testators had left money to be distributed in small doles at certain stated periods. Moreover the relief given at different monasteries was not coordinated in any way. The members of each institution gave their alms in their own way without any reference to the gifts of their neighbours. Besides, monks were not primarily intended to be relieving officers, and were not placed where they would be most useful for that purpose; there might be many in one neighbourhood and few or none in another. The charity distributed by the monks therefore was to a great extent unorganised and indiscriminate and did nearly as much to increase beggars as to relieve them[39].

(3) Hospitals.

But besides the monasteries there were hospitals. The term hospital was by no means confined to institutions for relieving the sick, but almshouses, orphanages and training homes were often called by this name. St Thomas's Hospital may be taken as a typical institution of the kind[40]. The date of its foundation is uncertain, but, early in the thirteenth century, it was destroyed by fire, and in 1228 was rebuilt on much the same site as that occupied by the St Thomas's Hospital of our own time. In 1323 the brethren were ordered to follow the rule of St Augustine, that is they were to take the vows of obedience and chastity, and to renounce individual property. The hospital consisted of Master, brethren, and sisters, and in the poet Gower's time there were also nurses, for he left bequests to the Master, brethren, sisters, and nurses, and asked from each their prayers. But, although the rule of St Augustine and the prayers for the benefactors belonged to the old order of things, the relief given to the poor was essentially the same from the time of Henry III. to that of Queen Victoria. It was founded for the relief and cure of poor people, and in 1535 there were forty beds for the poor, and food and firing were provided for them. Three years later it was surrendered into the hands of Henry VIII., and under his successor was reconstituted mainly on the old lines, but on a very much larger scale.

There were however several drawbacks to the hospitals as institutions for the relief of the poor. There was little security that the funds were well administered or that the appointments were impartially made. The king himself seems to have tried to exercise undue influence even in the case of St Thomas's Hospital: in 1528 he pressed Wolsey to give the Mastership to his chaplain, who, he said, was not learned enough for the king. There were however worse abuses than this, and even as early as the time of Henry V. it was necessary to pass a statute to prevent the maladministration of hospital funds[41]. Moreover at best the hospitals were only isolated centres of charity; they were not numerous enough to deal with poverty as a whole, and they were not connected with each other. The officials of each hospital acted on their own responsibility and afforded much or little relief to the poor of their immediate neighbourhood, but were almost as powerless as a private individual to check the general evil.

4. Attempts at Reorganisation.

The charitable endowments of the Continent were as inefficient as those of England, and both in England and abroad we find that attempts were made to organise a public system of poor relief in order that the honest poor might be relieved, and the bands of vagrants justly punished and repressed. Prof. Ashley has sketched the early history of poor relief on the Continent. He shows that, as early as 1522, the German towns of Augsburg and Nuremburg endeavoured to regulate the administration of charity in order to repress beggars, and that in 1525 the townsmen of Ypres reorganised their charitable institutions on a general plan and subjected the whole to public management with the approval of the ecclesiastical authorities. This organisation of Ypres was submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne and, with some limitations, the principles involved were approved[42]. It is thus clear that the necessity of reforming the administration of charity was felt even in districts which were hostile to the Reformation, and in countries where the Reformers were in power the old charitable endowments were often seized by the public authorities, who by so doing placed themselves under greater obligations to provide for the poor.

In England we find that the course of events is similar. The citizens of London, before 1518, began to draw up orders with the object of repressing vagrants and controlling charity, but after the dissolution of the monasteries they found it necessary to refound and reorganise the greater part of the existing system of relief. From that time until the reign of Charles I. constant efforts were made to create and to administer an efficient system of poor relief under public management. In the reign of Charles I., and not until then, were the efforts successful, and the English organisation is then seen to be almost[43] the only successful survivor of the many schemes of the same kind which had been tried in Western Europe.

5. (a) Three factors in the making of English poor relief.

There were in England three principal factors in the development of the system; first the orders of the municipal governors, secondly the regulations of Parliament, and lastly the efforts made by the Privy Council to induce the justices of the peace to put the law in execution.

5. (b) Three periods.

These three factors help to create the English system of poor relief from the reign of Henry VIII. to that of Charles I. But they are not of the same relative importance throughout the whole period. Before 1569 the orders of the municipal governments are important, between 1569 and 1597 the history of legislation is more prominent, while after 1597 the orders directed by the Privy Council to the justices become the most powerful force in securing proper administration, and are therefore the predominant factor in the development of the whole system.

We will consider each of these periods in turn and we shall find that, while each contributed its share to the making of the English system of poor relief, it was only during the last that the success of the organisation was assured.

CHAPTER III.

1514-1569.

POOR RELIEF IN THE TOWNS.

• 1. Importance of municipal government in Tudor towns.
• 2. London Regulations for a constant supply of corn. 1391-1569.
• 3. Regulations for the repression of vagrants and the relief of the poor. 1514-1536.
• 4. Refoundation of St Bartholomew's and imposition of a compulsory poor rate. 1536-1547.
• 5. Completion of the Four Royal Hospitals and establishment of a municipal system of poor relief in London. 1547-1557.
• 6. Failure of the municipal system in London.
• 7. Provision of corn in Bristol and Canterbury.
• 8. Lincoln. Survey of poor and arrangements for finding work for the unemployed.
• 9. Ipswich. Survey of poor, imposition of compulsory poor rate and foundation of Christ's Hospital.
• 10. Cambridge. Survey of poor and assessment of parishioners.
• 11. Summary.

We have seen that the social changes of the beginning of the sixteenth century led to a great increase in the number of vagrants; and that men were then more ready to substitute secular for ecclesiastical control in matters concerning the poor. Town Council, Privy Council and Parliament all endeavour to organise and supervise new methods of charity; and, by the combined efforts of all three, a new system of poor relief was gradually created. The earlier efforts in this direction were made between 1514 and 1569; and Town Councils were then more active than Parliament or Privy Council.

1. Importance of municipal government in Tudor times.

It is difficult now to realise the independent position of the town governors of Tudor times, and the authority possessed by them of regulating their own affairs. They imposed taxes without the authority of Parliament; uncontrolled, they could expel new comers from their borders; and they were fertile in the device of new punishments to drive the sturdy vagabond to honest labour. Each town was a law unto itself. Some municipal rulers made few experiments in this direction; others built hospitals for the old, and training homes for the young; invented punishments for the vagrants, and collected funds for the relief and discipline of all who were unable to support themselves. Many of the more successful orders, enforced in particular towns, were afterwards embodied by Parliament in statutes applying to the whole country. In the period from 1514 to 1569, the municipal regulations concerning these matters suggest the provisions of the statutes, more often than the provisions of the statutes suggest the regulations of the towns. Between 1514 and 1569 we will therefore examine, first, the action taken by the municipal authorities to improve and regulate the condition of sturdy vagabonds, unemployed workmen, poor householders, impotent beggars and neglected children: we will then consider the efforts made by the Privy Council for the same ends and the laws passed by Parliament with regard to the relief of the poor.

As London was, in these matters, more vigorous than other towns, we will examine first in detail the orders adopted there, and we will then see how far these regulations were typical of those enforced in other places.

London.
2. Regulations for a constant supply of corn in London, 1391-1569.

Some of the earliest of the London regulations for the help of the poorer classes concern the supply of corn. Even as early as the reign of Richard II., efforts had been made by particular Lord Mayors to bring corn to the City in years of famine. Adam Bamme, Lord Mayor in 1391, "in a great dearth procured corn from parts beyond the seas to be brought hither in such abundance as sufficed to serve the city and the counties near adjoining; to the furtherance of which good work he took out of the orphans' chest in the Guildhall two thousand marks to buy the said corn, and each alderman laid out twenty pounds to the like purpose[44]." But as London became more populous, the need of a constant supply of grain became much more urgent. In September 1520, therefore, an attempt was made to obtain the necessary funds in a more regular manner.

The Common Council then resolved that "Forasmoch as great derth and scarcity of whete hath nowe lately been and more lyke tensue, yf good and politique provision were not shortly made and hade Therfor in avoydyng therof, god grauntyng, yt is nowe by auctorite of the Common Counsell fully agreed and graunted that, in all goodly hast, oon thousand pound of money shalbe levyed and payed by the felishippes of sondry misteres and crafts of this citie, by way of a prest and loone[45]." Each craft was to be assessed for an amount proportionate to its wealth, and the wardens of each were left free to levy the sum upon the craftsmen according to their discretion. The funds so obtained were to be used to purchase corn for the City; this was to be placed in a public granary and used as a public store.

If only a small quantity of grain was brought into London by the ordinary corn dealers, the buyers would bid against one another until the price of corn became very great. There were no rapid means of communication and, for a time therefore, grain might be sold at famine prices and then as suddenly fall in value. In future, whenever this seemed likely to happen, a precept was to be issued by the Lord Mayor, ordering a certain quantity of the public store to be brought into the market. This supply would help to satisfy the more importunate buyers, and so send down the price to something like the ordinary level.

The public store of the City of London did not however become a permanent institution until after 1520; on one occasion the authorities misjudged the market and much of the original loan was lost, after which there was some difficulty in persuading the Companies to again advance the necessary capital. However, from this time onwards, corn was generally bought for the Companies' granaries whenever especial scarcity was feared, and during the reign of Elizabeth the Companies' store became a regular institution.

So far as the arrangements made in 1520 are concerned, the poor do not appear to have obtained corn at a reduced price, but they were the greatest sufferers when the price of corn was high, and regulations which had the effect of lessening the price benefited them more than the other inhabitants of London and were made chiefly in their interest.

3. Regulations adopted in London for the repression of vagrants and relief of the impotent poor, 1514-1518.

A series of regulations was adopted in London, between 1514 and 1524, which more directly concerns vagrants and beggars. These regulations are at first negative rather than positive; they forbid able-bodied vagrants to beg and they forbid the citizens to give to unlicensed beggars. Public disgrace formed part of the punishment of offending vagrants. Vagabonds were to have the letter V. fastened upon their breasts and were to be "dryven throughoute all Chepe with a basone rynging afore them[46]." Four surveyors were appointed to carry out these instructions. They were apparently dressed as grand City officials, for the Chamberlain paid the Lord Mayor for their sock hosen "embrodred[47]." Another special officer was admitted to the office of "Master and cheff avoyder and Keeper owte of this Citie and the liberties of the same of all the myghty vagabunds and beggars, and all other suspecte persons, excepte all such as were uppon thym the badge of this City[48]." In 1524, moreover, a great search was made, and it was ordered, that the vagabonds "myghty of body" should be "tayed at a cart's tayle" and "be beten by the Shireff's offycers with whippes in dyuers places of the Citie." The Chamberlain, also, "shall cause rownde colers of iron to be made for every of them, havyng the armes of this Citie uppon them and the same colers to be putt aboute theyr nekks[49]."

Meanwhile other orders of the Court of Aldermen concern the impotent and aged poor, and at first the City rulers did not become responsible for the collection of funds, but only for distinguishing between the really disabled beggars and impostors. Tokens of pure white tin were provided, which the Aldermen were to give to the impotent poor: all other beggars were strictly prohibited[50]. These efforts do not differ in principle from those of former times, but the orders are more frequent, and the appointment of surveyors and officers indicates that they were better enforced.

Collection of alms under authority of Aldermen of London.

Very soon it was seen that this was not enough, because, even if the disabled beggars were licensed, they were not always sufficiently relieved. In 1533, therefore, the Aldermen were ordered to depute persons to gather "the devotions of parishioners for the poor folk weekly and to distribute them to the poor folk at the church doors[51]." Thus the municipality began to make itself responsible for the collection of funds but, at the same time, the system of licensed beggars was continued, and more brooches were made for the Aldermen to distribute to such impotent beggars as they allowed.

So far, therefore, the authorities of London had taken measures to limit relief to the deserving poor, but they had not attempted much organisation of funds, or attempted to forbid beggars altogether.

4. Refoundation of St Bartholomew's Hospital and imposition of compulsory poor rates in London, 1536-1547.

But the dissolution of the monasteries made the relief of the poor by public authority a much more urgent matter. Stow gives a list of 15 hospitals and four lazar houses which existed within the City walls in 1536[52]. Eight of these were in danger, including some of the richest and largest foundations. St Mary's Spittle provided 180 beds for the poor, while St Thomas's and St Bartholomew's each maintained places for 40 patients. In 1538, therefore, the City authorities made an effort to save these hospitals. The mayor, Sir Richard Gresham, the aldermen and the commonalty of the City of London, presented a petition to Henry VIII., and asked that these three foundations and the new Abbey on Tower Hill might be preserved, "so that all impotent persones, not hable to labor shalbe releved by reason of the sayd hospitalls & abbey, and all sturdy beggers not wylling to lab^r shalbe punisshed, so that w^t Godd's grace fewe or no persones shalbe seene abrode to begge or aske almesse."

In the same petition they also ask that the king will give to the mayor and commonalty the four great churches of the Grey, White, Black and Augustinian Friars because they state that the remaining churches "suffyce not to receyve all the people comyng to the sayd parysshe churches" and the sick crowd in with the healthy to the "great noysance" of the inhabitants[53]."

On the 23rd of June, 1544, the king, to some slight extent, acceded to their requests and refounded St Bartholomew's Hospital. He agreed to furnish an endowment of 500 marks a year if the Common Council would do the same[54]. In 1546 the Common Council therefore bound themselves to do so, and in December an indenture was drawn up between the City and the king. The king granted not only St Bartholomew's but also Bethlehem Hospital, besides the Church of the Grey Friars, which was henceforward named Christ Church, and the parish church of St Nicholas. The City agreed to provide 100 beds in St Bartholomew's, which for a time was called the House of the Poor in Smithfield[55]. In 1547 the king confirmed his grant by Letters Patent[56].

But the citizens were at this time very little disposed to give to the poor. Latimer[57], Lever, and Brinklow all complain of their want of generosity, and the reasons given for the imposition of the first compulsory poor rate show that the complaints were well founded. Collections were made in the London parish churches every Sunday, but the sum raised was not sufficient to support the poor of even one hospital. In 1547 (1 Edward VI.), therefore, the Common Council resolved that the Sunday collections should cease and that instead "the citizens and inhabitants of the said Citie shall further contrybute & paye towards the sustentacon & maynteyning & fynding of the said poore personages the moitie or half deale of one whole fiftene[58]." This is probably the first time a compulsory tax was levied for the relief of the poor; the assessment is ordered by the London Common Council a quarter of a century before Parliament had given authority for the making of assessments for this object.

The half-fifteenth was to support the poor in the hospital for a year; after that time other methods of raising funds were employed. In 1548, certain profits belonging to the City were assigned to the fund for the relief of the poor, and, in addition, the sum of 500 marks, promised by the Common Council, was assessed upon the different City Companies according to their importance. The chief companies seemed to have paid willingly, but some of the smaller companies objected, and the wardens were ordered in consequence to appear before the Court of Aldermen and bring their money[59]. On this occasion the companies yielded and the money was paid, but the incident shows that, as yet, the citizens were by no means eager to undertake the duty of looking after the poor.

The provision for them had been altogether inadequate. "I thinke in my judgement," writes Brinklow in 1545, "under heaven is not so lytle provision made for the pore as in London, of so ryche a Citie[60]." The foundation of St Bartholomew's was not sufficient: in 1550, Lever, preaching before the king, reiterates the complaints of Brinklow. "Nowe speakynge in the behalfe of these vile beggars, ... I wyl tell the(e) that art a noble man, a worshipful man, an honest welthye man, especially if thou be Maire, Sherif, Alderman, baily, constable or any such officer, it is to thy great shame afore the worlde, and to thy utter damnation afore God, to se these begging as thei use to do in the streates. For there is never a one of these, but he lacketh eyther thy charitable almes to relieve his neede, orels thy due correction to punysh his faute.... These sely sols have been neglected throghout al England and especially in London and Westminster: But now I trust that a good overseer, a godly Byshop I meane, wyl see that they in these two cyties, shall have their neede releeved, and their faultes corrected, to the good ensample of al other tounes and cities[61]."

Brinklow and Lever both throw the responsibility for the disorder upon the citizens and the municipal officers, as if they were then recognised to be the chief authorities for dealing with the poor.

5. Completion of the Four Royal Hospitals and establishment of a municipal system of poor relief in London.

Ridley was the "good overseer," who was to amend these faults. In April 1550 he was appointed Bishop of London and, during the next three years, he endeavoured to place the relief of the poor on a sound basis. The Lord Mayors of 1551 and 1552, Sir Richard Dobbs and Sir George Barnes, also took the matter up warmly and, in consequence, a municipal system was organised and the three royal hospitals of King Edward's foundation were established.

Negotiations were soon undertaken with regard to St Thomas's Hospital: the citizens wished to obtain the lands of the hospital for the relief of the poor. In February 1552 some of their number were appointed to "travaile" with the king for this purpose, and it was finally agreed that the citizens should pay £2461. 2s. 6d. for property worth about £160 a year, while the king should grant an endowment in addition of about an equal amount. Thus St Thomas's Hospital was refounded under municipal management[62].

At the same time it was reported that St Bartholomew's Hospital had fallen into decay; the buildings were therefore repaired and the endowments increased. Christ's Hospital, the present Blue Coat School, was also founded for fatherless children, on the land of the Grey Friars formerly granted by Henry VIII. In order to raise the necessary funds the inhabitants of London were called to their parish churches and there were addressed in eloquent orations from the Lord Mayor, Sir Richard Dobbs, and the Aldermen and other "grave citizens." They were told how much better it would be to take the beggars from the streets and provide for them in hospitals, and were asked how much they would contribute weekly towards their relief. Books were drawn up of the sums promised and delivered by the Mayor to the King's Commissioners, in order that the king might do his part, and the whole be placed upon a satisfactory basis[63]. At the same time Ridley had endeavoured to help the citizens to obtain the royal palace of Bridewell, in order that a new kind of hospital might be founded, not for the impotent, but for the training, correction and relief of the able-bodied. He tried to interest Cecil in his object, and his letter to him is a curious specimen of the style of a charity letter of the time. "Good Mr Cecil," he writes, "I must be a suitor unto you in our good Master Christ's cause; I beseech you be good to him. The matter is, Sir, alas! he hath lain too long abroad (as you do know) without lodging, in the streets of London, both hungry, naked and cold. Now, thanks be to Almighty God! the citizens are willing to refresh him, and to give him both meat, drink, cloathing and firing: but alas! Sir, they lack lodging for him. For in some one house, I dare say, they are fain to lodge three families under one roof. Sir, there is a wide, large, empty house of the King's Majesty's, called Bridewell, that would wonderfully well serve to lodge Christ in, if he might find such good friends in the court to procure in his cause.... Sir, I have promised my brethren the citizens to move you, because I do take you for one that feareth God, and would that Christ should lie no more abroad in the streets[64]."

In a sermon preached by him before Edward in 1552 Ridley spoke much of the duties and responsibilities of those in high places towards the weaker classes. After the sermon we are told that the king sent for the Bishop and asked him what were the measures that he wished undertaken for the help of the London poor. Ridley asked leave to confer with the Lord Mayor and citizens of London, and, by them in the same year, a petition was presented to the Privy Council, showing the manner in which they hoped to proceed.

This petition stated that amongst the poor of the City the citizens espied three sorts; the "succourless poor child," the "sick and impotent," and the "sturdy vagabond." Christ's Hospital was now ready for the first, and some provision had been made for the second. With regard to the third class, that of sturdy vagabonds or idle persons, they considered "that the greatest number of beggars, fallen into misery by lewd and evil service, by wars, by sickness or other adverse fortune, have so utterly lost their credit, that though they would show themselves willing to labour, yet are they so suspected and feared of all men, that few or none dare or will receive them to work: wherefore we saw that there could be no means to amend this miserable sort, but by making some general provision of work, wherewith the willing poor may be exercised; and whereby the froward, strong and sturdy vagabond may be compelled to live profitably to the Commonwealth[65]." The poor to whom the citizens here refer are beggars; the poor householders who remained at home are not considered. Moreover in describing the sturdy vagabonds the word beggars is used, thus showing that it was the mendicant class of whom the citizens were thinking, and that they so far had little conception of distinguishing between the beggars and other poor. The citizens go on to say, that the classes of sturdy beggars they have in their mind are "the child unapt to learning," "the sore and sick when they be cured," and "such prisoners as are quit at the sessions." The general provision of work was to be furnished by a hospital, and it is carefully stated that the occupations there were to be "profitable to all the King's Majesty's subjects and hurtful to none." It is interesting to notice how it is proposed to get over the difficulty of pauper-made goods so far as the merchants were concerned. Certain citizens in the trade were to give out the raw material to the unemployed in the hospital. When they were wrought up, they were to receive back the finished goods and pay the hospital for their labour, while the stock of raw material was to be renewed. The manufactured goods would thus be put upon the market by the merchants with the rest of their stock and not in competition with them. They propose to exercise such trades as the making of caps and of feather-bed ticks and the drawing of wire. The "weaker sort" were to be employed in carding, knitting, and the dyeing of silk; the "fouler sort" in the making of nails and iron work.

Apparently the king and the Privy Council were satisfied with the plans of the City authorities, for an indenture was drawn up between the king and the citizens which was afterwards confirmed by the Royal Letters Patent[66]. Not only were the earlier grants concerning St Thomas's and Christ's confirmed, but the palace of Bridewell also was given to the City, in order that provision might be made for the relief, employment and discipline of sturdy beggars. Bridewell was not however immediately established but there is a report concerning St Bartholomew's in 1552, and Christ's and St Thomas's in 1553, which show that these three then were doing a considerable work. The pamphlet concerning St Bartholomew's was drawn up because there had been complaints concerning the expenditure and the partial failure of the work there[67]. The authorities state that the place was in a very dilapidated condition when it was received from the king, but that now, in 1552, one hundred beds were fully maintained; during the last five years on an average eight hundred persons had been healed, while one hundred and seventy-two had died. The regular expenses amounted to nearly eight hundred pounds a year and the regular income contributed by City and king reached the sum of £666. 13s. 4d. The extra expenditure and the deficit were contributed "by the charitie of certeine merciful citizens." The "biddell" of the hospital was especially charged to see that there was no abuse of its charity. If any person, that had been there cured, should counterfeit any "griefe or disease" or beg within the City, the beadle was to "committ him to some cage." Thus in 1552 the work of St Bartholomew's had been settled on a satisfactory basis. In 1553 reports were also drawn up of Christ's Hospital and St Thomas's[68]. Christ's then contained two hundred and eighty children[69], while another hundred were boarded in the country. More extensive powers seem to have been exercised at St Thomas's Hospital than at the other Royal hospitals, possibly because all the other hospitals dealt more especially with the poor in the City and it was therefore more convenient to separate their functions. St Thomas's was situated apart in Southwark and its governors exercised more general powers. Not only did the hospital relieve two hundred and sixty "aged, sore and sick persons" but it also pensioned five hundred other poor who lived in their homes: moreover in 1562 "yt is Agred uppon that A place shalbe appoynted to ponysh the sturdy and transegressors[70]." The annual expenses of Christ's and St Thomas's in 1553 together amounted to £3240. 15s. 4d., and of this sum £2914 was given by "free alms of the Citizens of London." Considering the value of money in those days and the probable number of the inhabitants, this was a very large amount. The liberality of the citizens was not always however stimulated by such bishops as Bishop Ridley, or such Lord Mayors as Sir Richard Dobbs, Sir Martin Bowes, and Sir George Barnes. In the reign of Elizabeth St Thomas's was in debt and the number maintained there had to be considerably reduced. Before 1557 Bridewell also was established and thus the number of the four Royal hospitals was completed. The hospital of Bethlehem was included in the original grant of Henry VIII. and probably had a continuous existence. It was a comparatively small institution, in which fifty or sixty lunatics were maintained, and in later times was always reckoned with Bridewell, so that it also formed part of the system of Royal hospitals under the management of the City although it was not counted as a separate hospital. In 1557 orders were drawn up for the government of the hospitals[71], and we can see that their erection had already made it more possible to distinguish between the different classes in need of relief. The City rulers do not now as in 1552 consider the word "beggars" interchangeable with the word "poor" but explain that "there is as great a difference between a poor man and a beggar, as is between a true man and a thief." ... "The policy of the erection of hospitals ..." they say "hath had good success and taken effect; for there is no poor citizen at this day that beggeth his bread but by some mean his poverty is provided for." The objects of the organisation are also explained to include the yielding "alms to the poor and honest householder[72]."

The hospitals are said to be linked together in their government, the objects of all are said to be the same; although to each hospital some governors were especially appointed, all had authority and responsibility with regard to the whole four[73].

The London Bridewell was destined to be the forerunner of so many Bridewells or Houses of Correction that it is perhaps interesting to examine more closely the rules for its management. Any two of its governors had power to take into the house persons presented to them as "lewd and idle." They had also power to search all places in which masterless men were likely to be found, and to punish landlords or tenants who harboured them.

The governors of the whole establishment were subdivided so that some might overlook every department. The rules with regard to the cloth-making establishment will illustrate the kind of supervision they were to exercise. They were first to make an inventory of the raw material and of the looms and other necessary implements. They were then to see that the clothier knew his business, and to order him to return a monthly account of the number of cloths which had been wrought. They were, moreover, to overlook the wool house, yarn house and spinning house and "to comptroll and rebuke" as they "shall see cause." They were to pay the workpeople, the weavers for weaving, the fullers for thicking and the spinners for spinning. The steward was to be allowed to charge for the diet of those that were employed. Every week they were to make a summary of their doings and every month a summary of their accounts.

Other crafts were supervised in the same manner; the nail house was in close connection with the Company of Ironmongers, probably in order to carry out the undertaking that the occupations "should be profitable to all the King's subjects and hurtful to none." The Ironmongers were to give "to this house, as the people of the same may reasonably live"; they were to have the preference with regard to the sale of the manufactured goods and to be allowed a month in which to make payment.

The worst vagrants were apparently sent to the mill and the bakehouse, but men who were fit for better employment were not to stay there. If the governors, we are told, shall "find any there above the ordinary, then shall ye cause the same to be known to the clerk of the work and see he bestow them in some other exercise."

Bridewell does not seem to have effectually reformed the vagrants, for the governors were to "see to the good order of the said mills, that neither the vagabonds do use shameless craving nor begging to the great grief of good men and slander of the house, neither that they obstinately and frowardly shall deny their aid and help towards the lifting up and taking down of such grain as shall be brought into the said mill[74]."

Bridewell, we have seen, was founded for the unemployed, but it is obvious from the language used that the citizens had mainly in their minds beggars who were unemployed, and from the first it seems rather to have been used for confirmed vagrants and untrained children than for labourers out of work. The governors certainly held regular meetings, about once a fortnight, and discussed the various cases that came before them. These nearly all concern petty offenders, thieves or vagrants, but there are one or two cases in which a man is admitted because "the City is charged to find him[75]." Other entries relate to young people who were apprenticed to the House and properly trained to work at some trade. In the later years of the century about two thousand persons passed through the hospital annually. Bridewell was the last of the Royal Hospitals to be established after 1557. Some provision was made for every class of the London poor. The municipal system of relief had begun with the punishment of vagrants; it proceeded to license all beggars entitled to ask for relief, and finally all the poor were nominally provided for and the funds were raised by compulsory taxation.

There was no sudden break with the older system. St Thomas's, St Bartholomew's and Bedlam had all been hospitals for centuries. They had been saved from destruction, improved and enlarged, but essentially the same work was done in the same places. There were however important points of difference between the new system and the old even as regards these three hospitals. They were under public management. There were many abuses in this management, but these abuses were now more readily detected and punished and were found out and reformed several times in the course of the next century.

But a more important difference lay in the fact that the hospitals were not now isolated institutions, each dealing with their patients, but were now part of a larger whole and had a definite part to play in the government of the City. Vagrants, who were taken to Bridewell and found to be ill, were sent on to St Bartholomew's or St Thomas's, while, on the other hand, a whipping was administered to the idlers after cure at St Thomas's, and the beadle of St Bartholomew's had special orders to prevent discharged inmates from begging. All these regulations show that they had become, not merely agencies for the relief of the sick, but also part of a system which aimed at the repression of beggars.

Bridewell was the greatest innovation and the most characteristic institution of the new system. The organisation for the relief of the poor had been called into existence because the crowds of vagrants were a chronic nuisance and danger to society. Bridewell dealt with the most difficult class of these vagrants and gave some of them a chance of training and reform. Moreover, Bridewell as a place of punishment for idlers was the necessary counterpart of the new schemes for universal relief. You could not relieve and find work for every one unless you had some means for coercing and punishing the "sturdy vagabond." Christ's Hospital, like Bridewell, is a new institution, but, unlike Bridewell, it does not altogether strike out a new line. Still, as soon as the relief of the poor becomes a public duty, institutions for the training of the young become increasingly popular, and we shall find that, during the next century, there are other Christ's Hospitals as well as other Bridewells in most of the great towns of the kingdom.

6. Failure of the municipal system in London.

This municipal system however was not successful in London. So far as London was concerned the organisation seemed fairly complete. But even from the local point of view the system was weak in one point. Funds had to be provided. It was not easy suddenly to raise the money necessary for the new organisation; men were not accustomed to be taxed for the poor, and, as soon as the first enthusiasm had subsided, a sufficient sum could not be collected. During the succeeding period we shall find that the rulers of London found great difficulty in this matter, and that this was one of the causes of the want of success of the municipal system of London. But another difficulty was inherent in the system in the very fact that it was municipal, and not national. A few years ago the distribution of the Mansion House Relief Fund caused a considerable immigration from the country. Exactly the same result arose from the first organisation of the poor in the City of London. In March, 1568/9, we are told that "forasmuch as experience late hath shewed that the charitable relief gyuen as well by the quenes ma^ties most noble progenitors as also the charitable almes from tyme to tyme collected within this citie and bestowed by the cittizens, aswell upon the poore and nedy citizens, being sicke, impotent and lambe as the poore orphans and fatherless children ... aswell in Chryste Church and Bridwell as in other hospitalles founded for the reliefe of the poore within the said citie, hath drawen into this citie great nombers of vagabondes, roges, masterless men and Idle persons as also poore, lame and sick persons dwellyng in the most partes of the realme[76]." The very measures which were taken to cope with poverty in London thus increased the crowd of beggars, not because they caused more people to become beggars, but because they attracted the poor from all parts. The City organisation broke down because it was confined to the City, but it had already done considerable service in helping the growth of the national organisation which was to follow.

Poor relief in towns other than London.

7. Provision of corn in Bristol and Canterbury.

We have now to examine a few cases in which other towns before 1569 adopted measures similar to those of London. With regard to the provision of corn it is quite possible that the London plan was widely followed. In 1522 we read that in Bristol "this yere whete, corn, and other graynes rose at a dire price, by reason whereof the said Maire, of his gode disposition, inclyning his charitie towardes the comen wele and profite of this Towne," ordered grain to be bought in Worcester, "by reason wherof greate abundance of whete, corn, and other graynes was so provided, that the inhabitauntes of the said towne were greatly releved and comforted in mynysshing of the price of whete, corn and other graynys, sold in the open markett of this said Towne[77]." At Canterbury the funds for this purpose are accounted for in the year 1552. More than £70 was then spent in the purchase of wheat and barley. It was not however altogether raised by the Town Council, more than half was obtained from the sale of the plate of the parish of St Andrew and from contributions from the parishes of St George and St Michael. This corn was bought especially for the benefit of the poor, and about one-fifth part of it was directly sold to them; the rest was sold to large buyers, and could only have benefited the poor by easing the market and so lowering the price to everybody[78].

8. Survey and employment of poor at Lincoln.

The surveying and licensing of beggars appears to have been very usual. Thus, at Lincoln in 1543, the constables were ordered to bring all the poor people in the city before the justices and it was provided that those who were to be allowed to beg should have a sign given to them. A similar order was made in 1546, and it was also decided that no one was to give alms to any beggar without a sign[79]. These orders are exactly parallel to the earlier measures of the rulers of London. Next year, in 1547, the citizens of Lincoln took a farther step. Not only were the beggars to be surveyed, but they were to be set to work, and in 1551 all the young people, who lived idly, were placed with the clothiers for eight or nine years and were to have meat, drink and other necessaries. All who refused this work were to be expelled from the town[80]. In 1560 a salary is paid to an officer who is to oversee and order all the poor and idle people in the town[81]. Special collections for the relief of the poor were also made in Lincoln before 1569, but apparently only in times of plague[82]. Grants were occasionally made to particular poor at other times and there was a more than usually definite amount of relief provided by the guild regulations for the poorer members of some of the Lincoln guilds[83].

9. Ipswich. Survey of poor, imposition of compulsory poor rate and foundation of Christ's Hospital.

But the measures of Ipswich resemble those of London more closely even than those of Lincoln. There the poor were not only surveyed and licensed, but before 1569 compulsory taxation was adopted and a municipal hospital was erected. As early as 1469 the burgesses had granted certain dues to lepers, but it was not until about 1551 that the municipal rulers began to make frequent and regular orders for the regulation of relief and beggary. In that year two persons were nominated by the bailiffs, "to enquire into the poore of every parish, and thereof to make certifficate to the Bayliffs[84]." Next year we find the burgesses anxious to increase the voluntary alms. The order of the guild festival was arranged, and it was agreed that the town officers should attend in their robes, and "they and all the Burgesses shall offer, and the offerings shall goe to the poore[85]."

In 1556 eight burgesses were appointed to frame measures "for the ordering of the maintenance of the poore and impotent people, ffor providing them work, ffor suppressing of vagrants and idle persons[86]."

We also find an attempt to decrease the number of beggars in an order worthy of an Irish town: "Noe children of this towne shall be p'mitted to begg, and suche as shall be admitted thereto shall have badges[87]."

A further step was then taken, and in Ipswich, as in London, compulsory payments were made for the poor. In 1557 it is ordered that "if any inhabitant shall refuse to pay suche money as shall be allotted him to pay for the use of the poore," he shall be punished at the discretion of the bailiffs[88].

Moreover, in 1569, we find the town hospital established. Christ's Hospital in Ipswich was built on the site of the House of the Black Friars and was a house of correction, as well as an asylum for the old and a training school for the young[89]. It was apparently no disgrace for the old to be admitted, for when it was provided that ships should pay certain dues to the hospital, it was also agreed that every mariner, who had lived in the town three years and should stand in need of assistance, should be allowed to go there[90]. At Ipswich therefore, in 1569, beggars were badged, the poor were organised, compulsory payments were exacted and a town hospital had been founded.

10. Survey of poor and regular assessment of parishioners in Cambridge.

At Cambridge also similar measures were taken. Some of the profits arising from Stourbridge fair had been left to the poor of Cambridge and was connected with a provision for the maintenance of "obiits." The funds belonging to the poor were preserved to them by the statute of chantries, but before 1552 it had not been paid. Complaint was then made, and it was decreed that the sum should be paid to the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, and should be distributed by them as in ancient times: this order was confirmed by royal grant in 1557[91]."

It is possible that the passing of this money through their hands may have made the town authorities regard the care of the poor as especially their duty.

In any case, in 1556, there was great scarcity and, on Dec. 7th, "Dr Perne, Vice-chancellor, Doctors Segewycke, Harvy, Walker and Blythe met the Mayor, Bailiffs and two Aldermen in St Mary's Church[92]." They called before them the churchwardens of all the parisshes, and these "browght in the bylls what any parryshoner was cessed towardes the relyeffe of the poore." Two days later the churchwardens presented "bylles of the number of poore people in the parisshes," and they were told to make a report as to "three states of the poore sort" and to inquire who had come into the parish within three years. Later, four superintendents and four "watchers for straunge beggeres" were appointed, and collectors were chosen for the next Sunday. The Vice-chancellor moved the Heads of Houses to make provision for the poor, and the superintendents went about the different parishes and visited the poor and settled what each should receive. On December 24th the Mayor and Vice-chancellor met at St Mary's to again settle what each poor person should be given and to give greater sums to some of them than had been before appointed[93].

In 1560 a set of ordinances was made for the purpose of raising funds to pay these pensions. Dues were to be paid for admission into the liberties of the town, for beginning actions in the Cambridge Law Courts, for the admission of attorneys to plead, for the surrendering of every booth and the signing of every lease. All these were to augment the funds for the poor. The attorneys were also to pay 1d. for every fee[94].

Thus in Cambridge also we have, first, the surveying and numbering of the poor; then, regular contributions from the parishioners, and regular payments to the poor who could not support themselves. At Cambridge there was no town hospital before 1569, and it was not until 1578 that a proposal to establish one there was made.

But attempts were already being made to found municipal hospitals in Norwich and Gloucester, and these we shall examine when we consider the events of the period between 1569 and 1597. Moreover, three of the old hospitals of York were refounded and placed under municipal management[95]. There the poor could be "set on worke" and the income derived from them was to be "ymployed to the maintenance of the powre." At Leicester also a municipal system for the poor had developed, and it seems that, in 1568, two collections were levied for this purpose, one of which provided the funds necessary for the relief distributed under the authority of the statutes, and the other met the expenditure incurred under the municipal regulations[96].

Thus in Lincoln, Ipswich, Cambridge, and York the order of development in matters concerning beggars and the unemployed is similar to that of London. Beggars are surveyed; the truly helpless are licensed; the others are forbidden to ask for any relief. Compulsory rates for their relief were levied in Ipswich and probably in Cambridge. At the same time provision is made for finding the able-bodied work in Lincoln, and hospitals are built or refounded for them in Ipswich, in York, and in Gloucester.

In Ipswich as in London all this was done before 1569, but other towns were much more backward, and in some the beggars were still unrestrained. There was thus no national system of poor relief, but only isolated municipal attempts to deal with the matter, all following the same general lines and becoming the rule, and not the exception, as time went on. It will be more convenient to consider the advantages of this system when we have also examined the doings of Parliament and Privy Council, and can consider the organisation before 1569 as a whole. The municipal system alone was not successful, in London or elsewhere; it was increasingly difficult to deal with new-comers and to provide funds.

But already before 1569 there were the beginnings of the succeeding national system in the doings of Parliament and Privy Council.

CHAPTER IV.

THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND PARLIAMENT.

1514-1569.

• 1. Efforts made by the Government to secure the employment of the clothmakers during the crisis in the cloth trade of 1527-8.
• 2. Regulations for the supply of the markets with corn, 1527-8.
• 3. Similar action in regard to corn in 1548 and 1563.
• 4. Letters of the Privy Council to particular local officials in connection with the relief of the poor.
• 5. Legislation concerning the relief of the poor during the reign of Henry VIII.
• 6. The two earlier statutes of Edward VI.
• 7. Legislation between 1551 and 1569.
• 8. Summary.

1. Efforts made by the Government to secure the employment of the clothworkers during the crisis in the cloth trade of 1527-8.

The Privy Council interfered comparatively little on behalf of the poor in this earliest period of the development of the English system of poor relief. However, in 1528 and on several other occasions the Government issued orders similar to those afterwards issued by the authority of the Privy Council. In 1528, however, these orders are said to come from Wolsey or the king, and it only incidentally appears that the Council had also a part in the matter. Possibly the policy, thus initiated, was the creation of Wolsey or of the Duke of Norfolk, but it was precisely the same kind of policy as that afterwards carried out under the authority of the Privy Council during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles.

The latter part of the year 1527 and the spring of 1528 was a time of great discontent and disorder. At the beginning of the year 1528 England had allied herself with France against the Emperor, and thus the ordinary trade in cloth to the Flemish markets was interrupted, and the Staple was moved to Calais. The English cloth-making industry was already carried on for foreign markets on a fairly large scale. In certain districts the greater number of inhabitants were employed by clothiers, who sold the manufactured cloths to the merchants chiefly for Flemish markets. The declaration of war therefore prevented the usual sale of cloths; consequently when the manufacturers in accordance with the trade regulations then in force brought the cloths to Blackwell Hall, the merchants did not buy as usual and the clothiers ceased to find work for their men. The workers had few other resources and disturbances followed. The Duke of Norfolk was sent into Suffolk to restore order, and persuaded the clothiers to keep their men in employment. He called representative employers before him from every town and told them that the reports concerning the detention of English merchants in Flanders were untrue. "If I had not quenched that bruit," he writes to Wolsey, "I should have had two or three hundred women sueing to me to make the clothiers set their husbands and children to work[97]." The same course was followed in other districts; Lord Sandys writes to Wolsey that he has received letters from both Wolsey and the King, which order him to see that the workpeople are not dismissed. He says nothing of the kind shall occur in Hants., and he hopes that Berks. and Wilts. will be equally well managed[98]. In Kent Sir Henry Guildford obtained a promise that no men should be sent away before harvest[99]. Both Norfolk and Guildford state however that the clothiers cannot hold out much longer, and they ask Wolsey to remedy this by persuading the merchants to buy the unsold cloths in the clothiers' hands[100]. When the king's Council heard of the difficulty, we are told that the Cardinal sent for a great number of merchants, and thus addressed them. "Sirs, the King is informed that you use not yourselves like merchants, but like graziers and artificers; for when the clothiers do daily bring cloths to your market for your ease, to their great cost, and there be ready to sell them, you of your wilfulness will not buy them, as you have been accustomed to do. What manner of men be you?" said the Cardinal, "I tell you, that the King straitly commandeth you to buy their cloths, as before time you have been accustomed to do, upon pain of his high displeasure[101]." The Cardinal further threatened to throw open the cloth trade to foreigners if the English merchants refused to buy as usual.

This remedy might be a clumsy one but it was not ineffectual. The cloth trade, in this instance, was restored to its usual course by the conclusion of a truce between England and the Netherlands. The time during which the contraction of the market occurred was short, and the clothiers could and did lessen the evils of this temporary fluctuation in their trade by continuing to find work and purchase cloths, as in more prosperous times, even though it was to their private disadvantage. A course of this kind was dangerous if the trade was permanently affected, but possible and useful under the actual circumstances, and probably saved the country from serious disturbance. The incident illustrates the fact that the difficulty of the relief of the poor was increased by the growth of manufactures on a large scale, because employment was more unstable, and because all the members of a family and most of the inhabitants of a neighbourhood were often out of work at the same time. Under these circumstances the distress of the poor was immediately followed by riots[102], and the action of Wolsey and the Council was occasioned, not only by the sufferings of the poor, but also by danger to the public peace.

2. Regulations for the supply of the markets with corn, 1527-8.

The connection between the distress of the poor and public order is also evident in the corn measures of 1527-8. The harvest of 1527 failed, while in the same year the coinage was debased, so that the average price of wheat was nearly double that of preceding years[103]. Part of this rise was thought to be due to the unfair buying of some of the corn-dealers. A commission was issued setting forth that owing to forestalling, regrating and engrossing "more scarcity of corn is pretended to be within this our said realm than, God be thanked, there is in very truth[104]." The commissioners were therefore to punish all offenders in this respect, and were also to find out by inquiry how great the supply of corn really was and to see that it was brought to market when needed[105]. Some of the reports drawn up in accordance with these instructions are in existence, and give for particular places the price and quantity of different kinds of grain and the number of inhabitants in the district[106]. In Essex and Suffolk the commissioners also talked to the more wealthy people and urged them to buy a store of corn for the poor. It was only however in Colchester and Bergholt that they seemed at all willing to do so[107]. On the whole there were few efforts at direct relief of the poor; the object of the Council was to obtain information and to prevent any aggravation of the scarcity by unfair practices.

At the same time measures were undertaken to lessen the disorder from which the country was suffering. In December 1527 a great search was made for vagrants, and the commissioners report the punishment of valiant beggars[108]. Notwithstanding all this there was a serious disturbance in Kent. The people asked for the return of the loan raised two years before, because they were so sore impoverished by the great dearth of corn[109]. The harvest of 1528 however was fortunately fairly plentiful, and the country again became peaceful. These difficulties again illustrate the connection between poverty and disorder, and show that the Privy Council first came to interfere in these matters in order to maintain the peace.

3. Similar action with regard to corn in 1548 and 1563.

In 1549 and 1550 the price of provisions was again high, and the people were mutinous. A proclamation was therefore issued fixing the price of corn, butter, poultry, and other provisions. Letters were written to the justices and to the Lords-Lieutenant, and a commission was appointed to enforce its execution[110]. But the whole series of orders was disobeyed and the misery caused by this year of scarcity partially accounts for the rebellions, which ended in the fall of Somerset, and nearly upset the Government altogether. Other instructions were sent out in 1561[111]: the difficulty was a frequently recurring one. The years of high-priced corn were years of riot, and resulted in constantly increasing efforts of the Privy Council on behalf of the poor. We shall see that in future years of scarcity the same difficulties arise, and similar measures are taken. But, as more experience was gained, there was less attempt to regulate prices, and more to directly organise the relief of the poor, so that the efforts to improve the administration of the poor law were closely connected with the measures to provide corn for the poor in years of scarcity.

4. Letters of the Privy Council to particular local officials in connection with the relief of the poor.

These orders of 1528 and 1549 were general in their character, and referred, either to large districts, or to the whole country. But the Privy Council also began to interfere with the relief of the poor by urging particular local officials to do their duty. This kind of action is illustrated by the letters addressed to the rulers of Kingston-upon-Hull in 1542 and of London in 1569.

In 1542 letters were sent by order of the Council to Kingston-upon-Hull, requiring the mayor to fix the price of provisions, "as the worckmen sent thither by the King's Ma^tie might live upon theyre wages[112]." Other letters were sent to the rulers of London in March[113] and June 1569 ordering them to be diligent in enforcing the laws against vagrants, and the letter of June 1569 also directly concerns the relief of the impotent poor.

"It will be necessarye," runs the letter, "to provide charitablie for suche as shalbe indede founde unfaynedlie impotent by age, syckness or otherwise to get theire livinge by laboure and for those wee earnestlie, and in the name of God, as wee ar all commanded, requyre and chardge youe all and evry of youe to consider diligentlie howe suche of theme as dwell within youre jurisdicion may be releyved in every parishe, by the good order that is devysed by a late acte of parliament and that thei be not suffred to wander or be abroad as commonley thei doe in the streites and highe waies for lack of sustentacon. And for the due and charitable execucon of that statute, wee thinke it good that the Bysshope or other ordinaries of the diocesse be moved by you in ow^r name to directe commandement to the Curates or ministers in all churches to exhort the parishioners to gyve there common almes at theire churches and to provide remedy against suche as have welth and will not contribut at the churches upon exhortacon and admonicon, and thereunto, wee require you to gyve yor adyes and assistance in every parishe where yo^r dwellinge is, and by yo^r good example incorage others in this charitable good dede etc.[114]"

Thus before 1569 the Privy Council find it necessary to enforce measures for the relief of the poor, though not to any very great extent. Their interference occurs especially in years of scarcity, and forms part of a series of measures undertaken with the object of preserving order.

5. Legislation concerning the relief of the poor during the reign of Henry VIII.

We have now to see what was the course of legislation during this period, although legislation was not the factor which was most important in creating the system of poor relief before 1569. Not only did the regulations of the advanced towns suggest the provisions of the statutes, but even when the statutes were passed, there is not much evidence that they were enforced, except when the town government was vigorous. They are important, not so much because of their immediate effect, as because they led to the later legislation of Elizabeth, and because they are authoritative expressions of the opinion of the time.

During the reign of Henry VIII. two statutes were passed. The 22 Henry VIII. cap. 12, was designed to prevent those who were not really impotent from begging, and to punish more effectively the able-bodied vagrant.

The preamble states, that the number of vagabonds was not "in any part diminished but rather daily augmented and increased." In the country, the justices of the peace and, in the towns, the mayors, bailiffs etc. were the officers responsible for the execution of the statute. They were ordered to search for the impotent poor of their districts and to give them letters authorising them to beg within certain limits. All beggars who begged outside the specified limits or without a license were to be put in the stocks. The impotent beggars were thus confined to a particular neighbourhood but were allowed under restrictions to beg for their subsistence. Poor scholars, shipwrecked mariners, and released prisoners might only beg if properly licensed. Otherwise they, or any other "valiant beggars," were to be taken to any justice or to the high constable, and by order of these authorities were to be whipped in the nearest market town. After punishment the vagrants had to swear to return to the place where they were born or last dwelt three years, and there to work for their living. A certificate was to be furnished to each of them stating the place and day of punishment, the place where the beggar was to go and the time he was allowed to get there. While on the way he was free from whipping, but if he exceeded his time or went elsewhere he was liable to be whipped whenever caught. Not only were able-bodied beggars punished, but those who gave alms to them were also to be fined, although the old practice of giving doles was allowed to continue, and the masters and governors of hospitals were excluded from the operation of the Act.

The main principles of the statute are identical with those enacted under Richard II., but the directions are much more detailed. Moreover provision was also made for the punishment of the inhabitants of any district where the statute was not executed. The regulations adopted are very similar to those already in force in London, where impotent beggars were already badged and sturdy ones whipped at the cart's tail.

The provisions are chiefly repressive; designed to limit the number of beggars rather than to provide relief. For this reason therefore they were not effectual, and a second statute (27 Hen. VIII. c. 25) was passed also in this reign. This Act was probably drawn up by Henry himself and is similar to measures passed at almost exactly the same time in France and Scotland. The preamble refers to the former statute and states that, "forasmuch as it was not provided what was to be done when the sturdy beggars and impoant poor arrived in their hundreds nor how the inhabitants were to be charged for their relief and for keeping at work the able-bodied, it is now ordered that the authorities of the Cities, Shires, etc." are to "charitably receive" the beggars and relieve them "by way of voluntary and charitable alms in such wise that none of them shall be compelled to wander idly and openly ask alms." The same officers are also to compel the valiant beggars to be kept at continual labour so that they may earn their own living.

Very few people were excepted from the operation of these provisions. Beggars with letters, travelling home at the rate of ten miles a day, are to be relieved; lepers and bedridden people may remain where they are; friars mendicant may beg and receive as they have been accustomed; and servants, leaving their service and having letters to that effect, may be free for a month from the operation of the statute. But with these exceptions, all who have not work or property were to be set to work or relieved. Authority was also given for the compulsory apprenticing of vagrant children, between the ages of five and fourteen, and thus for the first time this prominent feature of the later administration of poor relief appears in a statute. The execution of these provisions involved considerable expenditure, and the Act therefore proceeds to provide for the raising of funds. The Mayor or Governor of every city, borough and town corporate, and the churchwardens, with two others of every parish, were to collect alms every Sunday. This plan is similar to that already adopted in London where, in 1533, the aldermen were ordered to supervise the Sunday collections for the poor. There was no attempt at compulsion, but parsons, vicars and curates, when preaching, hearing confessions or making wills were to exhort people to be liberal. Certain games were forbidden by the same Act and the fines for breaking this or any part of the statutes were to go to the poor.

Alms were not to be given by the individual to any casual beggar but were to be placed in a common box, and doles were to be given only in the same fashion. As a rule each parish thus supported its own poor, but rich parishes were to help poor ones when necessary. Although a great deal of restriction was placed upon the casual almsgiver by these regulations there were many loopholes by which he might still evade the law. It remained lawful to relieve fellow parishioners, shipwrecked mariners and blind or lame people, lying by the wayside. Moreover certain poor people might be authorised to collect broken meat. Noblemen might give to anyone and abbots and friars were commanded to give as before.

This statute is the first in which the state not only enacts that the poor shall be provided for in their own neighbourhood, but also makes itself responsible for the administration of relief and the raising of funds. At the same time the clause, which provided that all alms were to be voluntary and that if they were insufficient the officers were not to be fined, made the Act only permissive in practice, for it could only be enforced when the inhabitants of a district chose voluntarily to provide the necessary money.

In this statute, as in the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12, a double set of officials for the administration of the law is provided. The funds were to be raised in every parish, but the mayor, as well as the churchwardens, was responsible for the collection of the parochial alms in the towns, and the municipal officers were the people who were mainly responsible for receiving and relieving the vagabonds and poor within their jurisdictions. Thus, not only do these two statutes make general the practices which existed in London before the statutes were passed, but they also place their execution in the hands of the same authorities. So far, however, the orders of both Parliament and the towns were directed far more to the repression of beggars than to the collection and administration of funds for the relief of the poor. Legislators seem to have thought that sufficient funds already existed, or could be easily collected, and carefully avoided all approach to compulsory payments for this purpose.

6. The two earlier statutes of Edward VI.

After the dissolution of the monasteries this was no longer the case. No other statute was passed in Henry's reign, but between 1547 and 1569 there were many and, as a rule, these relate chiefly to expedients for raising money.

A statute of 1547, however, relates mainly to vagrants[115]. It provided that a sturdy beggar might be made a slave for two years, and if he ran away a slave for life. The sons of vagrants also might be apprenticed until they were twenty-four, and the daughters until they were twenty, while the punishment of rebellion was slavery. This Act is often condemned as being the most severe Act of a savage series. It is, however, quite possible that it was not considered so savage in 1547. It must be remembered, that under the existing law an "incorrigible rogue" was punishable with death[116], and that this very punishment of servitude is suggested in More's Utopia as a much milder and better punishment than death for both petty thieves and vagrants. The regulation certainly altogether failed, for this part of the statute was repealed two years later: so far as able-bodied beggars were concerned, the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12 was reenacted and the whipping punishment there provided remained in force until 1572.