THE BEGGAR OF OLDEN TIME.
“_Only a Beggar_”—_The Fraternity_ 333 _Years ago_—_A Savage Law_—_Origin
of the Poor-Laws_—_Irish Distinction in the Ranks of Beggary_—_King
Charles’s Proclamation_—_Cumberland Discipline_.
WERE it not that the reader’s sound and simple sense renders it quite
unnecessary, it might be of importance to premise that to be “only a
beggar” does not constitute a human being a curse against his species.
There are those amongst the greatest and most famous who have been
beggars, and many of the mightiest, groaning under the crushing burden of
distracting power and unruly riches, have bemoaned their fate and envied
the careless beggar whose dwindled strength was at least equal to
carrying his slender wallet, whose heart was as light as his stomach, and
whose wildest dreams of wealth never soared vastly above a cosy barn to
sleep in, a warm old cast-off coat, and a sixpence. To be sure, in many
instances these dissatisfied ones may not have given any steadfast
consideration as regards such a decided change of state as might happen
to suit them. It is related of a King of Scotland that, wearying of the
cares of government, he slipped away from his palace and its cloying
luxuries, to taste the delights that attach to the existence of ragged
roving mendicants; but though his majesty affected to have enjoyed
himself very much, and discoursed afterwards gravely of the great moral
profit it brought him, it is not recorded that he persevered for any very
long time in the pursuit of the newly-discovered blessing, or that he
evinced any violent longing to return to it. Perhaps, having convinced
himself of the advantages of poverty, he generously resolved to leave it
to his subjects, contenting himself with such occasional glimpses of it
as might be got by looking out o’ window.
It is now 333 years ago since the beggar ceased to be dependent on
voluntary charity, and the State insisted on his support by the parishes.
In the year 1536 was passed an Act of Parliament abolishing the
mendicant’s right to solicit public alms. Under a penalty of twenty
shillings a month for every case of default, the parochial authorities
were bound to provide work for the able-bodied. A poor’s-rate, as we now
understand the term, was not then thought of, the money required for
pauper relief being chiefly derived from collections in the churches, a
system that to a limited extent enabled the clergy to exercise their
pious influences as in the old times, and before the destruction of
monasteries and religious houses by Henry VIII. It was the wholesale
spoliation in question, that occurred immediately after the Reformation,
that first made known to the people at large the vast numbers of beggars
that were amongst them. The Act of 27 Henry VIII. c. 25, prohibited
indiscriminate almsgiving.
What the charitable townsman had to give, he was bound to distribute
within the boundaries of the parish in which he resided. Under the old
and looser condition of affairs the beggar derived the greater part of
his gettings from the traveller; but the obnoxious Act effectually cut
off from him this fruitful source of supply, since it provided that any
parishioner or townsman who distributed alms out of his proper district,
should forfeit to the State ten times the amount given. Whether the
recipient of the bounty was in a position to act as “informer,” with the
customary advantage of receiving half the penalty, is not stated.
Against sturdy beggars the law was especially severe. On his first
conviction he was whipped, the second led to the slicing-off of his right
ear, and if after that he was deaf to the law’s tender admonitions,
sentence of death was executed on him.
This savage law, however, remained in force not more than ten years; one
of the earliest Acts of Edward VI. was to mitigate the penalties
attaching to beggary. Even under this humane King’s ruling, however, a
beggar’s punishment was something very far beyond a joke. Every person
able to work, and not willing, and declining a “job,” though for no more
tempting wages than his bare meat and drink, was liable to be branded on
the shoulder, and any man willing to undertake the troublesome charge
might claim the man as his slave for two years. His scale of diet during
that time was more meagre than that allotted to the pauper in our own
times. If the slave’s master was a generous man, he might bestow on him
the scraps from his table, or such meat-offal as his dogs had no relish
for; but in law he was only bound to provide him with a sufficiency of
bread and water. If such hot feeding did not provoke him to arouse and
set to work with a will, his master might chain him and flog him to
death’s door; and so long as he did not drive him beyond that, the law
would hold him harmless. Sometimes the poor wretch so goaded would run
away, but in the event of his being recaptured, he was branded on the
cheek, and condemned to lifelong servitude; and if this did not cure his
propensity for “skedaddling,” he was hanged offhand. Any employer having
a fancy for such a commodity as an incorrigible runaway might have the
man so condemned as his slave for life; but if no one offered, he was
chained at the legs and set to work to keep the highways in repair.
It was speedily found, however, that under such mild laws it was
impossible to keep the begging fraternity in a proper frame of mind; and
after a trial of it for three years the old Act of Henry was restored in
full force.
In 1551 there dawned symptoms of the system that has taken more than
three hundred years to develop, and even now can scarcely lay claim to
perfection. Collectors were appointed whose duty it was to make record
of the name, residence, and occupation of all who apparently were able to
give, as well as of those whose helpless distress entitled them to
relief. In the words of the ancient enactment, the said collectors were
to “gently ask every man and woman, that they of their charity will give
weekly to the relief of the poor.” To give, however, was optional, and
not compulsory; no more severe pressure was brought to bear against a
grudger than that the minister or churchwardens were sent to him to
exhort him to charity; but so many curmudgeons remained inexorable that
the voluntary system remained in force no longer than twelve years; and
then the statute regulating poor’s relief was remodelled, and it was
declared good law that any person able to contribute, and declining to do
so, might be summoned before a justice, who would tax him according to
his discretion, and commit him to gaol if he still remained obdurate.
This last Act was passed in 1563, but nine years afterwards, we find the
Government once again urged to repair what evidently had all this time
remained an unsatisfactory business. It is evident that the arrangements
made for the support of the impotent poor tended to loosen the shackles
invented for the suppression of the professional beggar. The
last-mentioned individual was found to be flourishing again, and it was
deemed advisable to make still shorter his restricted tether. A law was
passed enacting that “all persons whole and mighty in body, able to
labour, not having land or master, nor using any lawful merchandise,
craft, or mystery, and all common labourers, able in body, loitering and
refusing to work for such reasonable wage as is commonly given, should
for the first offence be grievously whipped, and burned through the
gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch
about.”
This mild and moderate mandate was promulgated under the sanction of the
virgin Queen Elizabeth, and it is to be observed that during the same
beneficent reign were passed laws in connection with labour and labourers
that, were they revived, would go hard with trade-unionists and strikers
in general. By the statutes 39 of Elizabeth, cap. 3 and 4 (1598), to
refuse to work at the recognised and ordinary wages subjected the
malcontent to be “openly whipped until his body should be bloody, and
forthwith sent from parish to parish, the most straight way to the parish
where he was born, there to put himself to labour, as a true subject
ought to do.” Under the same Acts of Elizabeth, the overseers of the
poor in every parish were empowered to raise by “taxation of every
inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and of every occupier of lands,
houses, tithes, mines, &c., such sums of money as they shall require for
providing a sufficient stock of flax, hemp, wool, and other ware or stuff
to set the poor on work, and also competent sums for relief of lame,
blind, old, and impotent persons.” By virtue of the Acts in question,
justices were empowered to commit to prison the able-bodied who would not
work; and churchwardens and overseers were charged to build suitable
houses, at the cost of the parish, for the reception of the impotent poor
only.
As, however, is observed by Mr. Halliday (to whose excellent account of
the _Origin and History of the Poor-Laws_ I stand indebted for much of
the material employed in this summary) “these simple provisions were in
course of time greatly perverted, and many abuses were introduced into
the administration of the poor-law. One of the most mischievous
practices was that which was established by the justices for the county
of Berks in 1795, when, in order to meet the wants of the labouring
population—caused by the high price of provisions—an allowance in
proportion to the number of his family was made out of the parish fund to
every labourer who applied for relief. This allowance fluctuated with
the price of the gallon loaf of second flour, and the scale was so
adjusted as to return to each family the sum which in a given number of
loaves would cost beyond the price, in years of ordinary abundance. This
plan was conceived in a spirit of benevolence, but the readiness with
which it was adopted in all parts of England clearly shows the want of
sound views on the subject. Under the allowance-system the labourer
received a part of his means of subsistence in the form of a parish-gift,
and as the fund out of which it was provided was raised from the
contributions of those who did not employ labourers as well as of those
who did, their employers, being able in part to burden others with the
payment for their labour, had a direct interest in perpetuating the
system. Those who employed labourers looked upon the parish contribution
as part of the fund out of which they were to be paid, and accordingly
lowered their rate of wages. The labourers also looked on the fund as a
source of wage. The consequence was, that the labourer looked to the
parish, and as a matter of right, without any regard to his real wants;
and he received the wages of his labour as only one and a secondary
source of the means of subsistence. His character as a labourer became
of less value, his value as a labourer being thus diminished under the
combined operation of these two causes.”
In the olden time, as at present, it appears that the Irish figured
conspicuously in the ranks of beggary. As is shown by the recent
returns, there are haunting the metropolis nearly three mendicants
hailing from the Emerald Isle to one of any other nation; and that it was
so so long ago as the reign of King Charles II. the following
proclamation will sufficiently attest:
“A Proclamation for the speedy rendering away of Irishe Beggars out
of this Kingdome into their owne Countrie and for the Suppressing and
Ordering of Rogues and Vagabonds according to the Laws.
“Whereas this realme hath of late been pestered with great numbers of
Irishe beggars who live here idly and dangerously, and are of ill
example to the natives of this Kingdome; and whereas the multitude of
English rogues and vagabonds doe much more abound than in former
tymes—some wandering and begging under the colour of soldiers and
mariners, others under the pretext of impotent persons, whereby they
become a burden to the good people of the land—all which happeneth by
the neglect of the due execution of the lawes formerly with great
providence made for relief of the true poor and indigent and for the
punishment of sturdy rogues and vagabonds: for the reforming thereof
soe great a mischiefe, and to prevent the many dangers which will
ensue by the neglect thereof; the King, by the advice of his Privy
Council and of his judges, commands that all the laws and statutes
now in force for the punishment of rogues and vagabonds be duly putt
in execution; and more particularly that all Irishe beggars which now
are in any part of this Kingdome, wandering or begging under what
pretence soever, shall forthwith depart this realme and return to
their owne countries and there abide.”
The authorities of Cumberland and Westmoreland appear to have hit on an
expedient that has proved successful in diminishing the number of tramps
that formerly infested those counties. A recently published report
states: “In consequence of frequent and general complaints from the
people of these two counties, as to the numerous robberies committed by
tramping vagrants, it was determined, at the end of the year 1867, to
enforce the Vagrant Act strictly. The result has been that, in the year
ending at Michaelmas 1868, 524 persons were apprehended in the two
counties for begging from house to house, and 374 of them were committed
to prison. The effect has been, to a certain extent, like that which
occurred in the time of the cattle-plague; when the police told the
tramps at the frontier that they must either stop or must be disinfected,
and they turned hack. The daily average number of tramps and vagrants in
the two counties in the year ending at Michaelmas 1868 was only 150,
making a total decrease of 6935 in the year; and various petty larcenies,
burglaries, and other crimes decreased remarkably. The chief constable
has reported that the course adopted has been attended with most
beneficial results, in checking professional mendicancy and preventing
crime; and he is persuaded that if the law were generally and uniformly
carried into effect, tramping vagrancy, as a trade, would be very soon
put an end to. He says that, as a rule, the condition of the hands will
enable the police to judge between the professional tramp and the working
man really travelling in search of work, and that all difficulty might be
removed by requiring the latter to procure a certificate from the head of
the police of the starting-place, which would protect him against
apprehension, and which might also guarantee certain relief at appointed
places along his route.”