Produced by MWS, Christopher Wright and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
THE EARLY HISTORY
OF
ENGLISH POOR RELIEF
London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
[Illustration]
Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
New York: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Bombay: E. SEYMOUR HALE.
THE
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.
APPENDIX I. Extracts from the Journals of the Common Council of London.
A. Copy of a precept issued for a collection for the poor issued
in 1563. _Journals_ XVIII. f. 145 b p. 305
B. Copy in the Journals of a precept for a collection in February
1573/4. _Journals_ XX. I. f. 119 pp. 306-307
APPENDIX II. Extract from the census of the poor taken at Norwich
recorded in the "Maioris Bocke for the Pore" pp. 308-310
APPENDIX III. Extracts from the "Orders for the poor" drawn up in
Norwich, May 1571: pp. 311-315
Orders for the poor, p. 311; for the balie of Bridewell, p. 312;
orders for children and others in wardes, p. 313; orders for the
deacons, p. 314. _The Book for the Poore_, Norwich.
APPENDIX IV. Report concerning scarcity from Norfolk, 1586. _Dom.
State Papers Queen Eliz._, Vol. 191, No. 12 pp. 316-317
APPENDIX V. Part of a draft of orders for remedying the scarcity of
corn in 1586. _Lans. MSS. Brit. Mus._ No. 48, f. 128 pp. 318-326
APPENDIX VI. Accounts of the Churchwardens and Overseers of the parish
of Staplegrove, co. Somerset, for the year 1599. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._
30,278 pp. 327-330
APPENDIX VII. Orders made by the justices responsible for Aylesham and
Reipham, co. Norfolk, 23rd October 1622. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._ No.
12496, f. 222 pp. 331-333
APPENDIX VIII. Report of the justices from Lackford and the half
hundred of Exning, February 7th, 1622/3. _Dom. State Papers James I._,
Vol. 142. 14. I pp. 334-335
APPENDIX IX. Extract from the Privy Council Register. Copy of a letter
sent to the Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of the Counties of Suffolk
and Essex concerning the employment of the Poor. _Privy Council
Register Chas. I._, Vol. V. f. 263. 22nd May 1629 pp. 336-337
APPENDIX X. Letter concerning the restoration of order and relief of
the poor in Rutland. _Privy Council Register_, Vol. VI. f. 345. 15th
Feb. 1630/1 pp. 338-339
APPENDIX XI. Letter from Sir Thomas Barrington concerning the eight
hundreds of Yorkshire. Vol. 177, No. 31. 21st Dec. 1630 pp. 340-341
APPENDIX XII. Justices' reports on the execution of the Book of Orders
of January 1630/1 p. 342
A. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 188, No. 85. Question asked by
the justices responsible for the division of Fawley, Hants. pp. 342-344
B. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 189, No. 80 and Vol. 197, No.
69. Extracts from two reports from the hundred of Braughing concerning
proceedings from Feb. 7th 1630/1 to June 27th, 1631 pp. 344-351
C. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 190, No. 10. Part of the Report
of Bridewell, 2nd May 1631 pp. 351-356
D. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 191, No. 42. Report concerning
Guildford, 7th May 1631 pp. 357-358
E. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 216, No. 45. Report of the
justices of Cambridge for the Hundreds of Chesterton, Papworth and
North Stow, May 13, 1632 pp. 358-360
F. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 226, No. 78. Part of the
certificate of the justices of Middlesex for the Finsbury division
concerning the sums received from penalties levied on alehouse keepers
in 1630, 1631, 1632 pp. 360-361
G. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 349, No. 86. Part of the
certificate from Bassetlaw, co. Notts., 10th March 1636/7 pp. 361-365
H. _Dom. State Papers Chas. I._, Vol. 395, No. 55. Certificate
concerning the Book of Orders from Loes, Wilford, Thredling and
Plomesgate, 14 July 1638 pp. 365-366
APPENDIX XIII. The division of the monies collected for the poor
January 1642/3 in Norwich. _Add MSS. Brit. Mus._ No. 22619, f. 11
pp. 367-368
APPENDIX XIV. Report of the Four Royal Hospitals, 1645. _King's
Pamphlets_ 669, f. 10, No. 2 pp. 369-370
APPENDIX XV. Ordinance of the Lords for putting in execution the laws
for the relief of the poor. _King's Pamphlets_ 669, f. 9, No. 81
p. 371
ERRATA AND CORRIGENDA.
P. 50, n. 4. _For_ Amysbury _read_ Amesbury, _for_ Boscum _read_
Boscombe, _for_ Alyngton _read_ Allington and _for_ Fiddelldene _read_
Figheldean.
P. 102, n. 1, p. 106, n. 2, p. 142, n. 3 _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. 3. _For_ Dewisburie _read_ Dewsbury, _for_ Shelfe _read_
Shelf, and _for_ Northowrom _read_ Northowram.
P. 170, n. 2. _For_ Thirske _read_ Thirsk.
P. 173, l. 22. _For_ Fropfield _read_ Froxfield.
P. 214, n. 2. _For_ Easbie _read_ Easby.
NOTE. P. 141, n. 1. 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.
[Sidenote: 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] 27 Hen. VIII. c. 25, 1535-6.
[2] 14 Eliz. c. 5, 1572.
[3] Preamble to Orders and Directions of 1631.
[Sidenote: 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.
[4] Bede's _Eccles. Hist._, Bk. III. c. VI. King Athelstan ordered the
distribution of much help to the poor. He ordered each of his reeves
every year to redeem one "wite theow" (penal slave) and to entirely
feed one poor Englishman. Thorpe, p. 84.
[5] Asser, Bohn, p. 68.
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]."
[6] Athelstan the Atheling gave lands to Ely on condition that they
fed a hundred poor men on his anniversary at the expense of his heirs.
Kemble, _The Saxons in England_, II. p. 510.
[7] _Ib._ p. 545. Eadgar, Archbishop of York, and Aelfric in the canons
which bear his name both order the same proportion of tithe to be set
aside for the poor. Thorpe, pp. 326 and 345.
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.
[Sidenote: 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].
[8] 36 Edw. III. c. 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.
[9] _Rolls of Parliament_, 46 Edw. III. II. p. 312. Petition of the
Commons.
[10] 12 Richard II. c. 3 and c. 7.
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].
[11] Riley's _Memorials of London_, pp. 304, 390.
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.
[12] 11 Hen. VII. c. 2, 19 Hen. VII. c. 12.
[Sidenote: 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.
[13] The following incident in the reign of Edward II. shows us the
bishop interfering in order to enforce the distribution to the poor
of part of the revenue of a church. Richard, Bishop of Durham, in
the course of the visitation of his diocese, came to the parish of
Wessington. The people there complained that hospitality was not shown
by the Church and that alms were not given to the poor. The bishop
therefore ordered that a portion of the revenue should be given to the
poor, and especially set aside the tithes of the new assarts of Sir
Walter de Wessington for this purpose. _Hist. Man. Com._, MSS. of J. R.
Ormsby, Esq., 1020 B. The statutes of Richard II. and Henry IV. seem to
have aimed at doing exactly what the Bishop did at Wessington, whenever
a living was impropriated by a monastery.
[14] 15 Rich. II. c. 6.
[15] 4 Hen. IV. c. 12.
[16] _The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors_, E. E. T. S., p. 33.
[Sidenote: 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].
[17] C. Gross, _The Gild Merchant_, vol. II. pp. 159-161.
[18] Boy's _History of Sandwich_, pp. 3 and 127. The references to this
and several of the following examples of municipal action are quoted by
Mrs Green, _Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_, vol. I. p. 41, note 2.
[19] In Hereford also, St Giles' and the Sick Man's hospital were
governed by the Corporation from the time of Rich. II. (_Reports of
Char. Com._), and in Exeter, the town rulers at one time exercised
rights over St Mary Magdalen's hospital, and afterwards exchanged these
for power over St John's hospital for lepers. Freeman's _Exeter_, pp.
68, 174, etc.
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.
[20] Tanner's _Notitia_, Yorkshire, CVI. The burgesses of Scarborough
are said to have founded and maintained another hospital, dedicated to
St Nicholas, and in both poor men and women were maintained.
[21] _Hist. Man. Com._, Rep. VIII. p. 371. 24 Hen. VII.
[22] Nathaniell Bacon's _Annalls of Ipswiche_, p. 129. In Rye also
payments were made to the poor from municipal funds as early as 1474.
_Hist. Man. Com._ V. p. 494.
[23] _Hist. Man. Com._ V. 527. In 1482-3, 3_s._ 4_d._ was paid to
Thomas Maykyne "to kepe Goderyng's doughtyr," and in 1485 there is
another entry of the same kind, "Paid for a kertylcloth for Herry
Goderyng's doughtyr and for making thereof, 3_s._ 1_d._"
[24] Payments in connection with this distribution of corn continue to
be mentioned, down to the end of an account book containing municipal
accounts from the beginning of the fifteenth century until the reign of
Richard III. _Hist. Man. Com._ V. 519.
[25] London had a regular Court of Orphans: see also _Southampton_,
John S. Davies, p. 159, and _Exeter_, Freeman, p. 154.
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. 2_s._ 1_d._ which, according to the value of
money at the time, might have furnished relief for about one hundred
and fifty people[26].
[26] John S. Davies, _Southampton_, pp. 139, 294, and C. Gross, _The
Gild Merchant_, vol. II. p. 231.
[Sidenote: 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.