THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND PARLIAMENT.
1514-1569.
1. Efforts made by the Government to secure the employment of the
clothmakers during the crisis in the cloth trade of 1527-8.
2. Regulations for the supply of the markets with corn, 1527-8.
3. Similar action in regard to corn in 1548 and 1563.
4. Letters of the Privy Council to particular local officials in
connection with the relief of the poor.
5. Legislation concerning the relief of the poor during the reign of
Henry VIII.
6. The two earlier statutes of Edward VI.
7. Legislation between 1551 and 1569.
8. Summary.
[Sidenote: 1. Efforts made by the Government to secure the employment
of the clothworkers during the crisis in the cloth trade of 1527-8.]
The Privy Council interfered comparatively little on behalf of the
poor in this earliest period of the development of the English system
of poor relief. However, in 1528 and on several other occasions the
Government issued orders similar to those afterwards issued by the
authority of the Privy Council. In 1528, however, these orders are said
to come from Wolsey or the king, and it only incidentally appears that
the Council had also a part in the matter. Possibly the policy, thus
initiated, was the creation of Wolsey or of the Duke of Norfolk, but
it was precisely the same kind of policy as that afterwards carried
out under the authority of the Privy Council during the reigns of
Elizabeth, James, and Charles.
The latter part of the year 1527 and the spring of 1528 was a time
of great discontent and disorder. At the beginning of the year 1528
England had allied herself with France against the Emperor, and thus
the ordinary trade in cloth to the Flemish markets was interrupted,
and the Staple was moved to Calais. The English cloth-making industry
was already carried on for foreign markets on a fairly large scale. In
certain districts the greater number of inhabitants were employed by
clothiers, who sold the manufactured cloths to the merchants chiefly
for Flemish markets. The declaration of war therefore prevented the
usual sale of cloths; consequently when the manufacturers in accordance
with the trade regulations then in force brought the cloths to
Blackwell Hall, the merchants did not buy as usual and the clothiers
ceased to find work for their men. The workers had few other resources
and disturbances followed. The Duke of Norfolk was sent into Suffolk
to restore order, and persuaded the clothiers to keep their men in
employment. He called representative employers before him from every
town and told them that the reports concerning the detention of English
merchants in Flanders were untrue. "If I had not quenched that bruit,"
he writes to Wolsey, "I should have had two or three hundred women
sueing to me to make the clothiers set their husbands and children
to work[97]." The same course was followed in other districts; Lord
Sandys writes to Wolsey that he has received letters from both Wolsey
and the King, which order him to see that the workpeople are not
dismissed. He says nothing of the kind shall occur in Hants., and he
hopes that Berks. and Wilts. will be equally well managed[98]. In Kent
Sir Henry Guildford obtained a promise that no men should be sent away
before harvest[99]. Both Norfolk and Guildford state however that the
clothiers cannot hold out much longer, and they ask Wolsey to remedy
this by persuading the merchants to buy the unsold cloths in the
clothiers' hands[100]. When the king's Council heard of the difficulty,
we are told that the Cardinal sent for a great number of merchants,
and thus addressed them. "Sirs, the King is informed that you use
not yourselves like merchants, but like graziers and artificers; for
when the clothiers do daily bring cloths to your market for your ease,
to their great cost, and there be ready to sell them, you of your
wilfulness will not buy them, as you have been accustomed to do. What
manner of men be you?" said the Cardinal, "I tell you, that the King
straitly commandeth you to buy their cloths, as before time you have
been accustomed to do, upon pain of his high displeasure[101]." The
Cardinal further threatened to throw open the cloth trade to foreigners
if the English merchants refused to buy as usual.
[97] J. S. Brewer's _Reign of Hen. VIII._, II. p. 261.
[98] _Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII._, 13 March, 1528, IV. No. 4058.
[99] Do. No. 4276; 17 May, 1528.
[100] Do. No. 4239; 4 May, 1528.
[101] Hall, p. 745, quoted in _Reign of Hen. VIII._, Brewer, II. p. 261.
This remedy might be a clumsy one but it was not ineffectual. The
cloth trade, in this instance, was restored to its usual course by
the conclusion of a truce between England and the Netherlands. The
time during which the contraction of the market occurred was short,
and the clothiers could and did lessen the evils of this temporary
fluctuation in their trade by continuing to find work and purchase
cloths, as in more prosperous times, even though it was to their
private disadvantage. A course of this kind was dangerous if the trade
was permanently affected, but possible and useful under the actual
circumstances, and probably saved the country from serious disturbance.
The incident illustrates the fact that the difficulty of the relief of
the poor was increased by the growth of manufactures on a large scale,
because employment was more unstable, and because all the members of a
family and most of the inhabitants of a neighbourhood were often out of
work at the same time. Under these circumstances the distress of the
poor was immediately followed by riots[102], and the action of Wolsey
and the Council was occasioned, not only by the sufferings of the poor,
but also by danger to the public peace.
[102] _Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII._, Nos. 4043, 4058.
[Sidenote: 2. Regulations for the supply of the markets with corn,
1527-8.]
The connection between the distress of the poor and public order is
also evident in the corn measures of 1527-8. The harvest of 1527
failed, while in the same year the coinage was debased, so that the
average price of wheat was nearly double that of preceding years[103].
Part of this rise was thought to be due to the unfair buying of some
of the corn-dealers. A commission was issued setting forth that owing
to forestalling, regrating and engrossing "more scarcity of corn is
pretended to be within this our said realm than, God be thanked, there
is in very truth[104]." The commissioners were therefore to punish all
offenders in this respect, and were also to find out by inquiry how
great the supply of corn really was and to see that it was brought to
market when needed[105]. Some of the reports drawn up in accordance
with these instructions are in existence, and give for particular
places the price and quantity of different kinds of grain and the
number of inhabitants in the district[106]. In Essex and Suffolk the
commissioners also talked to the more wealthy people and urged them to
buy a store of corn for the poor. It was only however in Colchester and
Bergholt that they seemed at all willing to do so[107]. On the whole
there were few efforts at direct relief of the poor; the object of the
Council was to obtain information and to prevent any aggravation of the
scarcity by unfair practices.
[103] The average prices of wheat were as follows:--
1520. 1521. 1522. 1523. 1524. 1525.
_s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._
9 4½ 7 8½ 6 0¼ 5 6 5 1½ 5 5
1526. 1527. 1528. 1529.
_s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._
6 2½ 12 11 8 10¼ 8 10
Thorold Rogers, _Hist. of Agric. and Prices_.
[104] The buying and selling of bread were under regulation, while law
and custom required that the corn should be sold in the open market.
As a rule it was supposed to be sold by the producer to the consumer,
but certain licensed "dealers" or "badgers" were allowed to buy corn to
sell again. A "forestaller" was one who bought corn or victuals while
it was on the way to a port or market, and so did not give other buyers
an equal chance; an "engrosser" was a dealer who bought up corn while
it was growing, or purchased corn or victuals to sell again; and a
"regrator" was one who bought corn or victuals and sold it again in the
same market, or within four miles. 5 and 6 Edw. VI., c. 14.
[105] _Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII._, IV., No. 3587. 18 Nov. 1527.
[106] Thus one of the Wiltshire reports gives details of this kind
parish by parish for the hundred of Amysbury. Parish of Boscum, three
persons have grain; population of parish, 80. In Alyngton two persons
have grain; population 70.... In the parish of Fiddelldene seven
households, consisting of 114 persons, have grain, while sixty persons
were without. _Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII._, No. 3665. 15 Dec.
1527. See vol. IV., App. 273.
[107] _Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII._, vol. IV., No. 3625. Norfolk
to Wolsey.
At the same time measures were undertaken to lessen the disorder
from which the country was suffering. In December 1527 a great search
was made for vagrants, and the commissioners report the punishment of
valiant beggars[108]. Notwithstanding all this there was a serious
disturbance in Kent. The people asked for the return of the loan raised
two years before, because they were so sore impoverished by the great
dearth of corn[109]. The harvest of 1528 however was fortunately fairly
plentiful, and the country again became peaceful. These difficulties
again illustrate the connection between poverty and disorder, and show
that the Privy Council first came to interfere in these matters in
order to maintain the peace.
[108] _Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII._, vol. IV., Nos. 3822, 3664.
[109] Do. Nos. 4173 and 4192.
[Sidenote: 3. Similar action with regard to corn in 1548 and 1563.]
In 1549 and 1550 the price of provisions was again high, and the people
were mutinous. A proclamation was therefore issued fixing the price
of corn, butter, poultry, and other provisions. Letters were written
to the justices and to the Lords-Lieutenant, and a commission was
appointed to enforce its execution[110]. But the whole series of orders
was disobeyed and the misery caused by this year of scarcity partially
accounts for the rebellions, which ended in the fall of Somerset,
and nearly upset the Government altogether. Other instructions were
sent out in 1561[111]: the difficulty was a frequently recurring
one. The years of high-priced corn were years of riot, and resulted
in constantly increasing efforts of the Privy Council on behalf of
the poor. We shall see that in future years of scarcity the same
difficulties arise, and similar measures are taken. But, as more
experience was gained, there was less attempt to regulate prices, and
more to directly organise the relief of the poor, so that the efforts
to improve the administration of the poor law were closely connected
with the measures to provide corn for the poor in years of scarcity.
[110] _Dom. State Papers_, Edw. VI., vol. X. 42, 43, vol. XI. 5 and 6.
[111] Stowe MSS. 152, f. 16.
[Sidenote: 4. Letters of the Privy Council to particular local
officials in connection with the relief of the poor.]
These orders of 1528 and 1549 were general in their character, and
referred, either to large districts, or to the whole country. But
the Privy Council also began to interfere with the relief of the
poor by urging particular local officials to do their duty. This kind
of action is illustrated by the letters addressed to the rulers of
Kingston-upon-Hull in 1542 and of London in 1569.
In 1542 letters were sent by order of the Council to
Kingston-upon-Hull, requiring the mayor to fix the price of provisions,
"as the worckmen sent thither by the King's Ma^{tie} might live upon
theyre wages[112]." Other letters were sent to the rulers of London
in March[113] and June 1569 ordering them to be diligent in enforcing
the laws against vagrants, and the letter of June 1569 also directly
concerns the relief of the impotent poor.
[112] _Acts of the Privy Council_, Nicolas, vol. VII. p. 320.
[113] This letter is referred to in the June letter. _Journals_, XIX.
f. 171 _b_.
"It will be necessarye," runs the letter, "to provide charitablie for
suche as shalbe indede founde unfaynedlie impotent by age, syckness
or otherwise to get theire livinge by laboure and for those wee
earnestlie, and in the name of God, as wee ar all commanded, requyre
and chardge youe all and evry of youe to consider diligentlie howe
suche of theme as dwell within youre jurisdicion may be releyved
in every parishe, by the good order that is devysed by a late acte
of parliament and that thei be not suffred to wander or be abroad
as commonley thei doe in the streites and highe waies for lack of
sustentacon. And for the due and charitable execucon of that statute,
wee thinke it good that the Bysshope or other ordinaries of the
diocesse be moved by you in ow^r name to directe commandement to
the Curates or ministers in all churches to exhort the parishioners
to gyve there common almes at theire churches and to provide remedy
against suche as have welth and will not contribut at the churches
upon exhortacon and admonicon, and thereunto, wee require you to gyve
yor adyes and assistance in every parishe where yo^r dwellinge is,
and by yo^r good example incorage others in this charitable good dede
etc.[114]"
[114] _Journals_, XIX. f. 171 _b_.
Thus before 1569 the Privy Council find it necessary to enforce
measures for the relief of the poor, though not to any very great
extent. Their interference occurs especially in years of scarcity,
and forms part of a series of measures undertaken with the object of
preserving order.
[Sidenote: 5. Legislation concerning the relief of the poor during the
reign of Henry VIII.]
We have now to see what was the course of legislation during this
period, although legislation was not the factor which was most
important in creating the system of poor relief before 1569. Not only
did the regulations of the advanced towns suggest the provisions of the
statutes, but even when the statutes were passed, there is not much
evidence that they were enforced, except when the town government was
vigorous. They are important, not so much because of their immediate
effect, as because they led to the later legislation of Elizabeth, and
because they are authoritative expressions of the opinion of the time.
During the reign of Henry VIII. two statutes were passed. The 22 Henry
VIII. cap. 12, was designed to prevent those who were not really
impotent from begging, and to punish more effectively the able-bodied
vagrant.
The preamble states, that the number of vagabonds was not "in any part
diminished but rather daily augmented and increased." In the country,
the justices of the peace and, in the towns, the mayors, bailiffs etc.
were the officers responsible for the execution of the statute. They
were ordered to search for the impotent poor of their districts and to
give them letters authorising them to beg within certain limits. All
beggars who begged outside the specified limits or without a license
were to be put in the stocks. The impotent beggars were thus confined
to a particular neighbourhood but were allowed under restrictions to
beg for their subsistence. Poor scholars, shipwrecked mariners, and
released prisoners might only beg if properly licensed. Otherwise
they, or any other "valiant beggars," were to be taken to any justice
or to the high constable, and by order of these authorities were to
be whipped in the nearest market town. After punishment the vagrants
had to swear to return to the place where they were born or last dwelt
three years, and there to work for their living. A certificate was to
be furnished to each of them stating the place and day of punishment,
the place where the beggar was to go and the time he was allowed to get
there. While on the way he was free from whipping, but if he exceeded
his time or went elsewhere he was liable to be whipped whenever caught.
Not only were able-bodied beggars punished, but those who gave alms to
them were also to be fined, although the old practice of giving doles
was allowed to continue, and the masters and governors of hospitals
were excluded from the operation of the Act.
The main principles of the statute are identical with those enacted
under Richard II., but the directions are much more detailed. Moreover
provision was also made for the punishment of the inhabitants of any
district where the statute was not executed. The regulations adopted
are very similar to those already in force in London, where impotent
beggars were already badged and sturdy ones whipped at the cart's tail.
The provisions are chiefly repressive; designed to limit the number
of beggars rather than to provide relief. For this reason therefore
they were not effectual, and a second statute (27 Hen. VIII. c. 25)
was passed also in this reign. This Act was probably drawn up by Henry
himself and is similar to measures passed at almost exactly the same
time in France and Scotland. The preamble refers to the former statute
and states that, "forasmuch as it was not provided what was to be done
when the sturdy beggars and impotent poor arrived in their hundreds nor
how the inhabitants were to be charged for their relief and for keeping
at work the able-bodied, it is now ordered that the authorities of
the Cities, Shires, etc." are to "charitably receive" the beggars and
relieve them "by way of voluntary and charitable alms in such wise that
none of them shall be compelled to wander idly and openly ask alms."
The same officers are also to compel the valiant beggars to be kept at
continual labour so that they may earn their own living.
Very few people were excepted from the operation of these provisions.
Beggars with letters, travelling home at the rate of ten miles a day,
are to be relieved; lepers and bedridden people may remain where
they are; friars mendicant may beg and receive as they have been
accustomed; and servants, leaving their service and having letters
to that effect, may be free for a month from the operation of the
statute. But with these exceptions, all who have not work or property
were to be set to work or relieved. Authority was also given for the
compulsory apprenticing of vagrant children, between the ages of five
and fourteen, and thus for the first time this prominent feature of
the later administration of poor relief appears in a statute. The
execution of these provisions involved considerable expenditure, and
the Act therefore proceeds to provide for the raising of funds. The
Mayor or Governor of every city, borough and town corporate, and the
churchwardens, with two others of every parish, were to collect alms
every Sunday. This plan is similar to that already adopted in London
where, in 1533, the aldermen were ordered to supervise the Sunday
collections for the poor. There was no attempt at compulsion, but
parsons, vicars and curates, when preaching, hearing confessions or
making wills were to exhort people to be liberal. Certain games were
forbidden by the same Act and the fines for breaking this or any part
of the statutes were to go to the poor.
Alms were not to be given by the individual to any casual beggar but
were to be placed in a common box, and doles were to be given only in
the same fashion. As a rule each parish thus supported its own poor,
but rich parishes were to help poor ones when necessary. Although a
great deal of restriction was placed upon the casual almsgiver by these
regulations there were many loopholes by which he might still evade the
law. It remained lawful to relieve fellow parishioners, shipwrecked
mariners and blind or lame people, lying by the wayside. Moreover
certain poor people might be authorised to collect broken meat.
Noblemen might give to anyone and abbots and friars were commanded to
give as before.
This statute is the first in which the state not only enacts that the
poor shall be provided for in their own neighbourhood, but also makes
itself responsible for the administration of relief and the raising of
funds. At the same time the clause, which provided that all alms were
to be voluntary and that if they were insufficient the officers were
not to be fined, made the Act only permissive in practice, for it could
only be enforced when the inhabitants of a district chose voluntarily
to provide the necessary money.
In this statute, as in the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12, a double set of
officials for the administration of the law is provided. The funds
were to be raised in every parish, but the mayor, as well as the
churchwardens, was responsible for the collection of the parochial
alms in the towns, and the municipal officers were the people who were
mainly responsible for receiving and relieving the vagabonds and poor
within their jurisdictions. Thus, not only do these two statutes make
general the practices which existed in London before the statutes were
passed, but they also place their execution in the hands of the same
authorities. So far, however, the orders of both Parliament and the
towns were directed far more to the repression of beggars than to the
collection and administration of funds for the relief of the poor.
Legislators seem to have thought that sufficient funds already existed,
or could be easily collected, and carefully avoided all approach to
compulsory payments for this purpose.
[Sidenote: 6. The two earlier statutes of Edward VI.]
After the dissolution of the monasteries this was no longer the case.
No other statute was passed in Henry's reign, but between 1547 and 1569
there were many and, as a rule, these relate chiefly to expedients for
raising money.
A statute of 1547, however, relates mainly to vagrants[115]. It
provided that a sturdy beggar might be made a slave for two years,
and if he ran away a slave for life. The sons of vagrants also might
be apprenticed until they were twenty-four, and the daughters until
they were twenty, while the punishment of rebellion was slavery.
This Act is often condemned as being the most severe Act of a savage
series. It is, however, quite possible that it was not considered so
savage in 1547. It must be remembered, that under the existing law
an "incorrigible rogue" was punishable with death[116], and that this
very punishment of servitude is suggested in More's _Utopia_ as a much
milder and better punishment than death for both petty thieves and
vagrants. The regulation certainly altogether failed, for this part of
the statute was repealed two years later: so far as able-bodied beggars
were concerned, the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12 was reenacted and the whipping
punishment there provided remained in force until 1572.
[115] 1 Edw. VI. c. 3.
[116] More's _Utopia_, Pitt Press ed. pp. 40, 41, 44. The suggestion
to make vagabonds public servants is put into the mouth of Cardinal
Moreton.
The statute of 1547 also made some additions to the provision for the
impotent poor. Cottages were to be erected for their habitation, and
they were to be relieved or cured. This clause was again reenacted
by the second statute concerning the poor of Edward's reign[117]. At
the same time the apprenticeship regulations were made less severe,
and justices were empowered to liberate children on any proof of the
misconduct of master or mistress.
[117] 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 16.
The next poor law of the reign[118] chiefly concerns the collection of
funds, and was passed in 1551-2.
[118] 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 2.
[Sidenote: 7. Legislation between 1551 and 1569.]
The officers responsible for the execution of the statute were
sometimes municipal and sometimes parochial. The mayor or head officer
was to act in the towns; the parson and churchwardens in the country.
These officers were ordered to call the householders together and to
nominate two collectors who were to gather the alms of the parish, and
it is provided that the collectors "shall gentellie aske" of every man
what he will consent to give weekly for the relief of the poor. The
various sums were to be entered in a book and collected every Sunday.
If any man refused to give, he was to be exhorted by the parson, and,
if the parson failed to persuade him, he was to be sent to the Bishop.
The Bishop was to induce him to contribute and "according to his
discretyon take order for the reformacon therof[119]." The Bishop was
also to see to the proper employment of sums granted to the poor by
Henry VIII., unless they had been taken away by an Act of Parliament.
This same statute also enacted that none were "to goo or sitt openlie
a begging," but in this respect was in advance of the time, for
during Mary's reign licensed beggars were again allowed[120], though
the remaining provisions of this statute were continued or reenacted
several times before 1563[121]. Early in the reign of Elizabeth,
however, a fresh step is taken towards the enforcement of compulsory
poor rates. The 5 Eliz. c. 3 originated in the House of Lords, and
may have been due to the fact that the Bishops found unavailing their
exhortations to stingy parishioners[122]. When a person obstinately
refused to give to the poor after the Bishop had duly exhorted him, he
might be bound by a recognisance of £10 to appear before the justices
of the peace in the country or the mayor, bailiff, &c. in the towns.
The justices or mayors were to "charitably and gentelly perswade and
move the said obstinate persons" to extend his or their charity towards
the relief of the poor of the parish where they dwelt. If any of them
again refused, the justices of the peace or mayor and churchwardens
might assess what sum he should pay weekly; if he still remained
obdurate he might be imprisoned.
[119] At Lambeth there is a register book made in accordance with
the provisions of this Act. It is entitled "A Register Booke of the
Benivolence of the Parishioners for the Reliefe of the Pore made in
A^o VI. Regis Edwardi VI^{ti}, etc." It states that it was "a register
booke gevyne by master Ambroose Wylles, gentylman, unto the churche of
Lambethe, wherein it is declared the benyvolence of the paryshoners of
Lambethe aforsaid towards the releiffe of the poore inhabitors there
... particularlye every man's name and what his devosyon is to geve
weklye towards the sustentacion of yher poore neyghbours according to
the king's highness prosedyngs, &c."
Master Parson gave for half a year 10_s._, and my lady Bridgwater 6_s._
8_d._ during the year. The book states that "On Sundaye October 30th
there was nothing distrybuted because that Master Wylles did extend his
charitye among the poore householders," and "on Sundaye the 6th day
of Auguste master parsone did give his cheritye to the poor people."
Denne, _Addenda to the History of Lambeth_, p. 392.
[120] 2 and 3 Ph. and Mary, c. 5.
[121] 7 Edw. VI. c. 11, 1 Mary St. 2, c. 13, 1 Mary St. 3, c. 12
all continue 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 2. The 2 and 3 Ph. and Mary, c. 5,
restates and re-enacts the substance of the chief provisions of this
Edwardian statute, and was continued by 4 and 5 Ph. and Mary, c. 9.
[122] The interrogatories issued by the Bishop of Norwich in
1561, before his visitation of his diocese, are similar to other
interrogatories of the time, and indicate the way in which the bishops
discharged their functions with regard to the relief of the poor. The
Bishop of Norwich enquired of the priests "whether they doo exhorte
the people to remember the poore after the homelye when they reade
the sentences exhorting the Almose." He enquired of the churchwardens
"whether they know any man that refuseth to contribute to the Almes of
the poore as a thing not rightlie appointed and discorageth other from
such charitable Almes?"
There were also questions as to whether a strong chest had been
provided for "the poore men's boxe," and whether it had been fastened
in a fit place. Other enquiries concerned the dues of the poor, such
as the payments that had formerly been made for lights out of movable
property and the fines of those who did not go to church. "Injunctions
of John, Bishop of Norwich," 2nd May, 1561.
The part taken by the bishops must have been of very considerable
importance, even when they acted only on the ecclesiastical side, and
it often happened that the bishops took a considerable share in the
general organisation of relief. Bishop Ridley, as we have seen, took
the leading part in the foundation of three out of the four royal
hospitals of London. This action of the bishop was exercised on the
lines laid down in the statutes, was recommended by the letter of the
Privy Council to the rulers of London in 1569, and was used to develop
the organisation of the towns. It serves to link every part of the new
organisation with the old methods of relief, but became less and less
important as more and more compulsion became necessary for the raising
of the funds.
It was in this hesitating way that the law first resorted to
compulsory payments for the poor. The utmost care is taken to make the
contribution as voluntary as possible and only to resort to force when
much persuasion had proved ineffectual. Even then compulsion might only
be resorted to in the case of obstinate individuals; it was not legally
permissible to assess the amount that everyone should give until 1572.
[Sidenote: 8. Summary.]
This statute of 1563 was the last enactment dealing with poor relief
passed before 1569. In principle, legislation has altered little
since the second statute of Henry VIII. In 1569, as in 1535-6, a
sharp distinction is drawn between the able-bodied beggars and the
impotent. The former are to be whipped and sent to their parish to
work; the latter are to be provided for by their fellow parishioners.
In both periods also the state appointed municipal or parochial
officials to collect funds and to relieve the poor. But there is a
great difference in the details of the statutes. The laws of Edward
VI. and the first statute of Elizabeth concerning the poor carefully
state who are responsible for the execution of each part of the Act
and provide penalties for neglect. The two statutes of Henry VIII.
are more detailed than the statutes of Richard II. but they were not
detailed enough; the enactments of Edward, Mary and Elizabeth add
still more precise provisions to secure the better execution of the
law[123]. But there is an even greater difference with regard to funds.
The laws of Henry presuppose that the poor will obtain sufficient
relief from voluntary alms; the statutes of Edward VI. and Mary
prescribe the persuasion, and those of Elizabeth the compulsion of the
contributors. Society had become too complicated for individual action
to be effectual either in restraining idle beggars or in relieving
the helpless poor: the duty was therefore undertaken by the state. It
seemed at first as if the old voluntary character of the gift could
be maintained, but this was soon found to be impossible. Throughout
this period, so far as legislation is concerned, an approximation
to compulsory poor rates accompanies the increase of the public
administration of relief.
[123] It was evidently difficult to induce men to become collectors.
The time of their election was often changed, and the fines for
refusing to serve continuously increased. This amounted to 20_s._ in
the 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 2, to 40_s._ in 2 and 3 Ph. and Mary, c. 5, and
to £10 in 5 Eliz. c. 3.