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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[44] Stow's _Survey_, ed. Thoms, p. 41.
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.
[45] _Letter Book of the City of London_, N. fol. 142-3. Quoted in
Herbert, _Livery Companies_, I. p. 132. Herbert quotes from the
corresponding entry in the _Journals_, 25 September, 12 Hen. VIII.
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.
[Sidenote: 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]."
[46] _Repertories_, III. f. 164, Sept. 9 Hen. VIII. The Repertories
of the City of London consist of large volumes in manuscript, dating
from 1485. They contain the minutes of the proceedings of the Court of
Aldermen and copies of the orders decided upon by that Court.
[47] _Ib._ III. f. 197.
[48] _Ib._ IV. f. 154 _b_
[49] _Repertories_, IV. f. 215. Oct. 13, 16 Hen. VIII.
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.
[50] _Ib._ III. f. 174 _b_ and 192, 194. About five hundred tokens were
thus distributed, 18 Feb., 9 Hen. VIII.
[Sidenote: 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.
[51] _Repertories_, VIII. f. 274 _b_.
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.
[Sidenote: 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."
[52] Stow mentions 20 hospitals altogether. Two, Christ's and
Bridewell, were later foundations, and three other foundations had
already been suppressed by Hen. V. The purpose and fate of the
remaining fifteen, as stated by Stow, are given below. No. 3, 4, 5, 6,
9, 10, 11, 14 were the eight threatened by Hen. VIII., and also No. 13,
until rescued by the Mercers. Stow's _Survey of London_, pp. 183-184,
ed. Thoms, 1876.
Hospital | Founded | Purpose | Suppressed | Refounded
---------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------+------------------
1. St Mary's, | | For lunatics | Yes | Given to
Barking | | | | St Catherine's
| | | |
2. St Anthony's, | | Free School | Edw. VI. | Gone
Broad Street | | | |
| | | |
3. St Bartholomew's | Rahere, temp. | Sick people | Hen. VIII. | By Hen. VIII.
| Hen. I. | | |
| | | |
4. St Giles in | Matilda, wife | Lepers | " |
the Fields | of Hen. I. | | |
| | | |
5. St John's of | | For defence | " |
Jerusalem | | of Rhodes | |
| | | |
6. St James in | By citizens | Leprous | " |
the Fields | | virgins | |
| | | |
7. St John's | Hen. VII. | 100 poor | Edw. VI. | By Mary.
at Savoy | | people | | Barrack, Chas. I.
| | | |
8. St Catherine's | Matilda, wife | Master, | Not |
by the Tower | of Stephen, | Chaplain, | suppressed |
| and | 3 brethren, | |
| Catherine, | 3 sisters, | |
| wife of | and 10 | |
| Hen. VIII. | alms-women; | |
| | also dole | |
| | | |
9. St Mary's | | 100 blind | Hen. VIII. |
within | | people | |
Cripplegate | | | |
| | | |
10. St Mary's, | Simon | Lunatics | " | Given by Hen.
Bethlehem | Fitzmary | | | VIII. to the
| | | | citizens
| | | |
11. St Mary's | 1203 | 180 beds for | Hen. VIII. |
Spittle without | | poor | £478 |
Bishopsgate | | | |
| | | |
12. St Mary's, | | Brotherhood | Hen. V. and | Refounded Edw.
Rounceval | | | Edw. VI. IV. | to Edw. VI.
| | | |
13. St Thomas of | | Master and | Surrendered | Sold to Mercers
Acon | | brethren | Hen. VIII. |
| | | |
14. St Thomas in | Rich. | Sick people | Hen. VIII. | By citizens and
Southwark | Whittington | | | Edw. VI.
| | | |
15. Hospital and | | Almshouse | Suppressed | The poor remain
almshouse, | | for 13 poor | | and are paid by
Whittington | | men and | | Mercers
Coll. | | College | |
| | | |
16, 17, 18. Three | | all cells of | Hen. V. |
hospitals | | Clugny. | |
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]."
[53] _Memoranda of the Royal Hospitals of the City of London_, Appendix
I. pp. 1 and 2.
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].
[54] _Ib._ II. p. 4.
[55] _Ib._ III. p. 8.
[56] _Ib._ IV. p. 8.
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.
[57] "Sermon of the Plough, preached by Latimer, at St Paul's, Jan.
1548/9." "Now what shall we say of these rich citizens of London? What
shall I say of them? Shall I call them proud men of London, malicious
men of London, merciless men of London? No, no, I may not say so;
they will be offended with me then. Yet must I speak. For is there
not reigning in London as much pride, as much covetousness, as much
cruelty, as much oppression and as much superstition as was in Nebo?
Yes, I think, and much more too.... But London was never so ill as it
is now. In times past men were full of pity and compassion, but now
there is no pity; for in London their brother shall die in the streets
for cold, he shall lie sick at the door between stock and stock ... and
perish there for hunger: was there ever more unmercifulness in Nebo? I
think not. In times past, when any rich man died in London they were
wont to help the poor scholars of the Universities with exhibition.
When any man died, they would bequeath great sums of money toward
the relief of the poor. When I was a scholar in Cambridge myself, I
heard very good report of London, and knew many that had relief of the
rich men of London: but now I can hear no such good report, and yet I
inquire of it, and hearken for it; but now charity is waxen cold, none
helpeth the scholar, nor yet the poor."
[58] Journals, XV. f. 325 _b_. See Appendix. The Journals of the City
of London, like the Repertories, are contained in large volumes, in
manuscript. They contain notes of the resolutions passed by the Common
Council, and both copies of precepts sent by the Mayor to the Aldermen,
and of letters written to official personages upon matters decided by
the Common Council.
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.
[59] _Repertories_, XII., No. II. f. 52, f. 53 _b_.
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]."
[60] Brinklow, _The Lamentacyon of a Christen agaynst the Citye of
London for some certayn greate vyces used therin_, p. 91.
[61] Arber's reprints of Lever's _Sermons_, p. 78.
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.
[Sidenote: 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. 2_s._ 6_d._ 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].
[62] Supplement to _Memoranda relating to the Royal Hospitals_, p. 7.
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]."
[63] Stow's _Survey_, edited Thoms, p. 140.
[64] Ridley's _Life of Bishop Ridley_, p. 377.
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.
[65] T. Bowen, _Extracts from the Records and Court Books of
Bridewell_, p. 2. Appendix.
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. 13_s._ 4_d._ 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. 15_s._ 4_d._, 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]."
[66] _Memoranda of the Royal Hospitals_, Appendix, pp. 52 and 59.
[67] A copy of the original pamphlet is in the British Museum. Eight
hundred persons had been healed "in the meane season" during the past
five years. The list of expenses is interesting because of the light it
casts upon the cost of living in 1552. The diet of the hundred patients
is calculated at 2_d._ the day; each sister was allowed for her board
sixteen pence a week, while the matron obtained eighteen pence.
[68] "Account of Expenses incurred by the City in erecting and
maintaining St Thomas's Hospital." Harleian MSS. No. 604, p. 176,
printed in Supplement to _Memoranda of Royal Hospitals_, p. 32.
[69] The allowance paid for the children was tenpence a week.
[70] W. Rendle, _Old Southwark_, p. 138. The whipping-post or "Crosse"
soon required repair, and stocks also were provided. We hear frequently
of its being used. In 1567, John Martyn was sentenced to twenty-five
stripes for robbing gardens and misusing a poor "innocent;" while in
1570, "Jane Thornton, one of the Systers," was sentenced to receive
"xii strypes, well layd on." There are several cases also in which
the hospital governors find masters for patients when they have been
cured, or sometimes bind them apprentice. In one case they apprentice
a boy who had been cured of a sore leg, and covenant that "yf hitt
happen the sayd Legg Do brek outt agayn" the boy shall be cured "only
of the chardg of the hospital." Occasionally there are details of the
employment of the inmates. In 1569 a small sum is received from the
Matron "for work done by the poore women and children," and in 1573 "a
mocion is made that a handemyll to grind corne may be provyded to sett
the pore to worke to kepe them from ydelnes." But the arrangements for
employment are on a very small scale and seem only likely to concern
patients, or perhaps the people in the casual ward. Others would be
sent to Bridewell. These details are all derived from Mr Rendle's _Old
Southwark_, where much more information, derived from old records of
the hospital, has been printed.
[71] The general rules relating to the holding of general Courts and to
the election of governors, the duties of the officers and the charges
to be given to both officers and governors were printed in 1557,
together with the particular regulations for the governors of Christ's.
An original copy is in the British Museum, entitled, "The Order of the
Hospitalls of K. Henry the viii^{th} and K. Edward the vi^{th},
{ S. Bartholomew's,
{ Christ's,
viz. {
{ Bridewell,
{ S. Thomas,
By the Maior, Cominaltie and Citizens of London, Governors of the
Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the sayd Hospitals. 1557." The
orders provide that sixty-six governors should be appointed, fourteen
of whom were to be aldermen and the rest "grave commoners." Of the
fourteen aldermen, six were to be "Graye clokes" and two of these were
to be Governors general of all the hospitals.
[72] T. Bowen, _Extracts from the Records and Court Books of
Bridewell_, Appendix, II. p. 8 _seq._
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].
[73] _Ib._, p. 9.
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]."
[74] T. Bowen. _Extracts from the Records and Court Books of
Bridewell_, Appendix, II., p. 11 _seq._ The whole of the particular
regulations relating to Bridewell are here printed.
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.
[75] Some of the original Court Books of Bridewell are still preserved
among the records of its modern representative, King Edward's schools.
By the kindness of the authorities I have been allowed to examine them.
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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[76] _Journals_, XIX. 164 _b_. March 15, 1568/9.
[Sidenote: Poor relief in towns other than London.]
[Sidenote: 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].
[77] Ricart's _Calendar_, p. 49. Corn was also bought for the use of
the Mayor and "cominaltie" of Bristol, in 1532, p. 52.
[78] _Minutes collected from the ancient records of Canterbury._ Civis
(William Welfitt), No. XIV. Account of the corn furnished for the poor,
21st November, 1552 (6 Edw. VI.).
£32 6_s._ contributed by St Andrew's, the value of the plate of
the parish church.
£32 contributed by the Mayor and Commonalty.
£10 from the churchwardens of St George's.
£2 " " " St Michael's.
Sixty-six quarters and one bushel of wheat were bought, nearly fifteen
quarters of which were sold to the poor at sixteen shillings a quarter;
nearly forty quarters of barley were bought, and nine of these were
sold to the poor at six shillings a quarter.
[Sidenote: 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].
[79] _Hist. Man. Com._, Rep. XIV., App. VIII. pp. 38 and 40.
[80] _Hist. Man. Com._ _l.c._, pp. 41, 44.
[81] _Ib._, p. 51.
[82] _Ib._, p. 49. 5th May, 1557.
[83] In the Smiths' charter, approved 17th July, 1563, it is provided
that "if any fall into poverty, or by reason of infirmity or age shall
not be able to relieve himself, sevenpence shall be paid to him weekly
from the chattels of the fellowship, and on his death the officers
shall cause his body to be decently buried, and at his burial shall
dispose to the poor of the city two dozen of bread."
Also the Charter of the Girdlers, Glovers, Skinners, Pinners, Pointers,
Scriveners and Parchment-makers provides: "The weekly allowance to
brethren in poverty is 6_d._ at the least." Do. p. 57.
[Sidenote: 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]."
[84] Nathaniell Bacon's _Annalls of Ipswiche_, pp. 129, 235.
[85] Nathaniell Bacon's _Annalls of Ipswiche_, p. 237. There are thus
indications at Ipswich, as at Southampton, of a connection between the
guild customs and the action of the town with regard to the poor.
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]."
[86] _Ib._, p. 246. Oct. 9, 1556.
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]."
[87] _Ib._, p. 247.
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].
[88] _Ib._, p. 250.
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.
[89] _Ib._, p. 283.
[90] _Ib._, p. 292. 10 Sept. 1571.
[Sidenote: 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]."
[91] Cooper's _Annals of Cambridge_, vol. II. pp. 62, 132.
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].
[92] _Ib._, p. 110.
[93] _Ib._, p. 110.
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 1_d._
for every fee[94].
[94] _Ib._, p. 163.
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].
[95] "City of York in the Sixteenth Century." Article by Miss Maud
Sellars, _The Eng. Hist. Rev._, April 1894.
At York, in the reign of Henry VIII., beggars had been badged, and in
1551 a fixed poor rate had been levied from the different wards. The
system of allowing licensed beggars to beg was however continued in
York for some time after 1569.
[96] _Hist. Man. Com._, Rep. VIII. p. 427. Gloucester, 14 Eliz. c. 5.
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.