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 first schemes of relief.
5. Parental government.
6. Bridewell, the keystone of the system.
[Sidenote: 1. The action of the rulers of particular towns precedes the
action of Parliament.]
Before 1569 no effectual system of poor relief had been established,
but many experiments had been made. At the beginning of the century
a serious problem was before the Government. The social changes of
the time had resulted in the formation of crowds of vagrants, and
the greater complexity of economic conditions made the position of
the workfolk more unstable. Even in ordinary times, therefore, the
vagabonds were a constant plague to the peaceful citizen, and when
corn was dear or work was slack the greater number of the inhabitants
of particular districts, being without resources, joined in riots
or rose in insurrections. There were then no Friendly Societies or
workmen's clubs, and no casual wards or workhouses. Years of scarcity
were therefore always times of disorder and the peace of the whole
country was threatened. Assistance given by means of private charity,
monasteries and hospitals failed to relieve the distress or to remedy
the evil. Force was tried; thieves were hanged and vagabonds were
whipped. But, even as early as 1515, Sir Thomas More saw that the
root of the evil was much deeper, "Neither ther is any punishment so
horrible, that it can kepe them from stealynge, which have no other
craft, whereby to get their living[124]."
[124] More's _Utopia_, p. 28. Pitt Press edition.
Even before 1569 the statutes had appointed authorities both for the
collection of funds and for the distribution of relief, and had made
contributions to the poor compulsory. But, on the whole, the practice
of London and certain other towns was in advance of the regulations
of the statutes; the main feature of the period is the municipal
organisation of poor relief. London in 1547 and Ipswich in 1557 had
made regulations for levying compulsory payments for the poor, long
before any statute had authorised the exaction of compulsory payments
for this purpose. Nor is this the only matter in which the regulations
of the towns seem to suggest the provisions of the statutes. Before
the 22 Hen. VIII. had ordered vagabonds to be whipped at the cart's
tail, London vagabonds had been so treated; before the 27 Hen. VIII.
had ordered the collection of alms for the poor on Sunday by municipal
and parochial authority, that method had been adopted in London.
London, Cambridge, and Ipswich had, before 1569, built up an elaborate
organisation for dealing with the poor, an organisation that seemed
complete, but failed because it was municipal and not national.
The history of the legislation of the time thus shows that the Tudor
Poor Laws did not, like modern Factory Acts, initiate regulations never
before enforced. On the contrary, the provisions of these statutes
reveal the beginnings of the national system, following the same
line of development as that which had already been reached by many
particular towns.
[Sidenote: 2. Advantages of the municipal system of relief.]
There were some advantages connected with this independent municipal
action, which is thus characteristic of the relief of the poor before
1569. It was possible for the central Government to estimate the
practical effect of their measures before they became law, because they
were already probably adopted in some towns.
Another advantage that belonged to the municipal organisation of the
times was the close connection that existed between the authorities who
administered poor relief and those who administered charities. Most of
the London charities seem to have belonged either to the parishes or to
the Companies. The parochial charities were administered by authorities
closely connected with those responsible for the public system of poor
relief in the parishes, and the City charities were administered by
authorities closely connected with the public system of poor relief in
the City. Moreover the work of all the parishes was controlled by the
same central authority.
[Sidenote: 3. Connection between the municipal organisation of poor
relief and the dissolution of the monasteries.]
The connection between the municipal organisation of poor relief and
the dissolution of the monasteries is not altogether clear. Long
before 1536 the difficulty of repressing beggars was serious, and the
alms of the townsfolk were wasted upon unworthy recipients. Between
1514 and 1533 London had already taken measures both to restrain and
license its beggars and to collect alms for the poor. It is probable,
that had the monasteries continued to exist, these measures must have
extended. But the existence of the doles of the monasteries was in
itself an obstacle to the better government of beggars, because the
relief given by them was in no way controlled by the same authorities.
In London the hospital of Savoy preserved during the reign of Mary an
independent existence, side by side with the hospitals under central
management, and we find that the City authorities complained of even
this one hospital, and said the beggars there relieved were a cause of
disorder, and a hindrance to the good government of the City. Had all
the old monasteries and hospitals maintained an independent existence
it is difficult to see how the regulations of the town rulers could
have had much effect, unless the religious endowments also had been
subject to municipal control. Moreover the monasteries had relieved
many poor at their gates, and among the monks and nuns themselves were
probably many who were unfit for the battle of life. These people had
to be provided for as well as the unrelieved poor of former days.
The immediate need was therefore greater after 1536 than it had
been before. At the same time responsibility in the matter fell more
directly on the citizens. While the old religious foundations existed,
it was supposed that they ought to provide for the poor; now they
were destroyed, the responsibility must be fixed elsewhere. It was
the citizens whom Latimer and Lever blamed for neglect. Moreover some
of the spoils of the dissolution fell into the hands of the municipal
rulers, and sometimes they were charged with administering them for the
use of the poor. This would certainly facilitate their action and would
perhaps lead them to consider the relief of the poor especially as a
municipal duty. Something of the kind seems to have happened at York,
and possibly also at Cambridge.
In any case it is certain that, after 1536, the citizens of London set
themselves much more vigorously to work to deal with the poor; that the
royal hospitals were founded partly from the dissolved monasteries,
and that the foundation of these hospitals first led to the compulsory
taxation of 1547 for the poor in London, and called into existence
the governors for the poor. Municipal care for the poor therefore
existed before the dissolution of the monasteries, but became much more
extensive afterwards, both because the need was greater and because the
rival authority was suppressed.
[Sidenote: 4. Relation of beggary to first schemes of relief.]
The close relation between beggars and the new system of poor relief
is also apparent. The first efforts of Town Councils and Parliament
were occasioned by the great increase in the number of begging poor;
the earliest orders concern the punishment of able-bodied beggars; the
others were left to voluntary charity. But the able-bodied beggars
were sometimes unable to obtain work and the impotent beggars were
sometimes unrelieved. The system of the royal hospitals of the City of
London was founded by the City rulers to meet these difficulties. They
considered especially three kinds of beggars; children, sturdy beggars,
and the impotent poor; they built or refounded all the hospitals in
order to provide for one or other of these classes. Occasionally
begging was forbidden altogether, but as a rule beggars were not
altogether banished, but some of them were provided for in hospitals
or by pensions, and the rest were licensed. As soon as the system was
established, even as early as 1557, the distinction between beggars
and other poor was clearly seen and recognised, but still, it is true,
that the organisation first grew up in order to lessen the number of
vagabonds, and chiefly concerned beggars.
[Sidenote: 5. Parental government.]
Still the regulations of the town rulers were not entirely confined
to beggars. The articles, drawn up "at the meting of the towneship of
Burye the XIIII^{th} daie of Januarye 1570" (1571), illustrate the
sort of family duty recognised by the municipalities towards their
members, and the corresponding right of interfering with individual
freedom. After commanding everyone to go to church on Sunday, the next
regulation orders every person "suspected of loytring" to declare to
the constable every Sunday in the morning "where he wrought everie daie
in the said weeke," and "if any labourer shall not be provided of worke
on the Sondaie for the weeke following, then the curate or cunstable
to move the parishe for worke." The burgesses also order a certain
Agnes Servall to go to service before Easter and in the meantime "to
keep her church on the sabbath days. If she failed to do so both mother
and daughter were to be whipped[125]." The town discipline was severe
however much the parental rulers might look after the welfare of all
the inhabitants. The relief of the poor was very closely connected
with parental government of this kind. But both the suppression of
beggars and the exercise of this family responsibility on the part of
municipality or state involved means of coercion.
[125] _Hist. Man. Com._, Rep. XIV., App. VIII. p. 139.
It was also ordered that "every spynster to have (if it may be) vi^{lb}
of wolle everye weeke, and to bringe the same home every Saterdaie
at night, and if any faile so to doe, the clothier to advertise the
cunstable thereof for the examynacion of the cause and to punyshe it
according to the qualitye of the falte." Moreover no poor person was
"to be suffered to kepe their childrene at home able to serve."
[Sidenote: 6. Bridewell.]
The institution of Bridewell was therefore the keystone of the whole
system. Vagrants were not reformed by whipping or by the fear of
hanging, because they preferred to run the chance of capture when
starvation was the alternative. Unorganised almsgiving failed even
more conspicuously. But organised relief accompanied by a House of
Correction was a step towards the solution of the problem. It also was
in full harmony with the parental idea of government and the practice
of state regulation of economic matters which existed throughout the
reigns of the Tudors and earlier Stuarts.
The creation of the first Bridewell and the organisation depending
upon it was the work of the citizens of London. It needed great
liberality: gifts were then for the most part voluntary, and the result
shows considerable public spirit on the part of the richer classes
and a great sense of the corporate unity of the City by the whole
body of citizens. It is true that the liberality did not last; that
the isolated action of single towns could not deal with a national
difficulty, but the town rulers began to make experiments, to train
officials and to create the custom of relieving the poor. They did not
themselves succeed in solving the problem, but without their incomplete
regulations the national organisation of the future would hardly have
been possible.