1569-1597. PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
A. _Parliamentary History._
1. Discussions, Bills and Statutes between 1566 and 1576.
2. Parliamentary history between 1576 and 1597.
3. The Bills and Statutes of 1597.
4. General features of the discussion in Parliament.
B. _The action of the Privy Council._
5. The chief characteristics of the action of the Privy Council.
6. The whipping campaign.
7. The scarcity measures.
8. The influence of the Privy Council on
(1) the Mayor and Corporation of London,
(2) other local officials.
The action of municipal authorities in particular towns, which, before
1569, is the main feature in the development in the English system of
poor relief, becomes of relatively less importance after that date.
Matters concerning the poor attract increased notice in Parliament
and the statutes become more definite and more effective until 1597.
An enactment was then passed, the provisions of which, as re-enacted
in 1601, have remained almost unaltered until the present century.
The leading feature therefore of the period from 1569 to 1597 is the
improvement in legislation. But besides the improvement in legislation
we must notice the pressure exercised by the Privy Council on the
justices of the peace. This becomes more operative and frequent
throughout the reign of Elizabeth, but before 1597 it had not attained
anything like the same degree of success that it was destined to
achieve under Charles I. At the same time local organisation must not
be altogether neglected, and now the measures of the justices in the
country are important as well as the orders of the towns.
We will consider, therefore, so far as they affect the poor, first, the
Parliamentary history from 1569 to 1597; secondly, the action of the
Privy Council; lastly, some of the more important local measures and
the events of the concluding years of the period 1594 to 1597.
[Sidenote: A. Parliamentary history.]
The history of the Bills, committees and debates in Parliament in the
period from 1569 to 1597 shows very clearly that the English Poor
Law did not come by chance, but was the result of the thought and
experience of the greatest men of the time. Their discussions make us
realise, that in those days, as in ours, opinion was much divided on
the subject, and that in matters concerning the poor it is particularly
true that there is very little new under the sun. The earlier part of
the parliamentary history of the question circles round the statutes
of 1572 and 1576, the later round the code of 1597. Between these two
dates there were some slight alterations and additions to the law and a
decided change in opinion and feeling.
[Sidenote: 1. Discussions, Bills and Statutes between 1566 and 1576.]
In 1566, we find notes in Cecil's handwriting on a scheme for
preventing a dearth of grain and on the definition of the word
"vagabond." He jots down the words "bearwardes," "Tynkers" and
"pedlars," as if he were the author of the definition[126] of
"vagabond" that was to cause so much difference of opinion in 1572.
[126] _Dom. State Papers Queen Eliz._, vol. 41, No. 76. See p. 69.
These notes were possibly the basis of two Bills which were introduced
into Parliament in the session of 1566. One concerned the punishment of
vagabonds and loiterers and was introduced into the House of Commons;
the other concerned the provision of grain and was considered by
the Lords[127]. In neither case did the Bills become law, but it is
worth noticing that the question of the provision of grain had been
discussed in Parliament as in 1572, and in 1586 the Privy Council
again took action in the matter. In 1571 a new Bill, concerning the
punishment of vagabonds and the relief of the poor was introduced,
and there was an interesting debate on the first reading[128]. One of
the chief speakers, Mr Sands, subsequently took a considerable part
in the discussion of 1597. He considered that this Bill of 1571 was
"over-sharp and bloody" and thought that milder measures would be more
successful. If justices would take the trouble, he said, every man
might be relieved at his own home: this was clearly feasible because
it was actually done in the county of Worcester. Sir Francis Knollys
also spoke and was on the sterner side. He would have had a Bridewell
in every town, and have had it maintained by a fine of twelvepence from
every "Tippler[129]." This is a good illustration of the way in which
Bridewell, an institution originally peculiar to London, influenced the
discussions in Parliament and was there suggested as a type or model
for similar institutions throughout the country.
[127] D'Ewes' _Journals_, pp. 112, 132.
[128] D'Ewes' _Journals_, p. 165.
[129] I.e. keeper of a public-house.
Another speaker was Mr Thomas Wilson, to whom we owe the organisation
of the Record office of his time. Like a modern secretary of the
Charity Organisation Society he told his hearers that "it was no
charity, to give to such a one, as we know not, being a stranger unto
us."
No statute followed this discussion of 1571, but when Parliament again
met in 1572 a Bill was brought into the House of Lords which finally
became law. The main feature of the debate in 1572 was a dispute
between the Lords and the Commons as to the definition of the word
"vagabond." The definition in the Act includes[130] (1) proctors or
procurators; (2) persons "using subtyll craftye unlawful Games" and
"fayninge themselves to have knowledge in Phisnomye, Palmestrye, and
other abused Scyences"; (3) all able-bodied persons not having either
"land or maister" who cannot give a satisfactory account of their
means of livelihood; (4) all "fencers, Bearewardes, Comon Players in
Enterludes and minstrels" not belonging to a Baron or other honourable
person of greater degree and all "Juglers, Pedlars, Tynkers and Petye
Chapmen" unless the bearwards, tinkers etc. were licensed by two
justices of the peace; (5) common labourers, able to work, who refuse
to work for the customary wages; (6) all counterfeiters of passes and
all who use them knowing them to be counterfeit; (7) all scholars of
Oxford and Cambridge who beg without being licensed by Chancellor
or Vice-Chancellor; (8) all shipmen not properly licensed; (9) all
liberated prisoners who beg without a license, and lastly (10) all
persons declared vagabonds by the clauses of the Act which concern
the impotent poor. A great many people were thus affected by the Act;
the unauthorised beggar, the workman on strike, the poor scholar at
the Universities, unless he were duly licensed, and the shipwrecked
mariner, as well as the fortune-teller and the proctor or collector of
subscriptions. All these were abandoned to their fate, but the clause
concerning the suppression of "minstrells, bearwards, pedlers etc."
caused a dispute between the Lords and the Commons[131]. These men took
the place which shops, circuses and newspapers occupy in the life of
to-day, and their total suppression would have meant a considerable
loss in the country life of Merry England. After discussion the two
houses agreed upon a compromise; it was arranged that these people
should be allowed if licensed by two justices of the peace, and the
Bill became law as the 14 Eliz. c. 5.
[130] 14 Eliz. c. 5.
[131] D'Ewes' _Journals_, p. 220.
The regulations concerning vagrants are severe, more severe than in any
other Act except the slavery statute of 1547. For a first offence, a
vagabond was to be whipped and bored through the ear, unless someone
would become surety for him and keep him in service for a year. For a
second offence, he was to be adjudged a felon, unless he could find a
surety who would take him into his service for two years; and for a
third offence the vagrant was to be adjudged a felon without clergy and
might be punished with death[132].
[132] This Act of 1572 was at certain times rigorously enforced. Thus
at Middlesex Sessions held June, 17 Eliz. Thomas Maynerde, Oswald
Thompson and John Barres were brought before the magistrates. On the
18 March in the same year they had been whipped and burnt through the
ear at the Old Bailey; they were now accused of "being over 18 years
old and fit for labour, but masterless and without any lawful means of
livelihood." They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to be hung. Also on
the 6 Feb. 18 Eliz. a woman was tried for vagrancy and committed for
two years to a surety who was her husband, to be his servant. She was
again found wandering, and in October of the same year was sentenced
to be hung. In the ten weeks between 6 Oct. 32 Eliz. and 14 Dec. 33
Eliz. seventy-one persons were sentenced at Middlesex Sessions to be
whipped and branded for vagrancy. Middlesex Sessions Roll, ed. T. C.
Jeaffreson, pp. 94 and 191.
Special regulations refer to some of the pauper immigrants of the
time. In the days of Elizabeth these came chiefly, not from the
Continent, but from Ireland and the Isle of Man. The unfortunate people
were to be punished as sturdy vagrants and sent home again, while the
people who brought them over were to be fined twenty shillings for each
immigrant.
But "forasmuche as Charitye would that poore, aged and impotent persons
should as necessarylye be provided for, as the said Roges, Vacabondes
and Sturdye beggars repressed" the clauses of the enactment deal
with relief as well as with repression. The justices of the peace
were to make a register of the names of the poor in every parish and
habitations were to be found for them. Every month the mayor and high
constable were to make search for the strange poor and were to send
them back to their own neighbourhood.
When the poor had been thus settled the justices in the country
and mayors in the towns were to estimate how much it would cost to
maintain them. They were then "by their good discretions" to "taxe and
assesse all and every the Inhabitauntes," dwelling in their divisions,
"to suche weekely charge as they and everye of them shall weekely
contribute towardes the Releef of the said poore People."
The mayors and justices were also to appoint collectors and overseers,
and the "obstinate person" who refused to contribute was to be brought
before two justices and sent to gaol unless he became obedient.
Thus the Act of 1572 does not enforce compulsory payments in the
case of obstinate individuals only, like the statute of 1562-3; it
also enforces the compulsory payment of an assessed sum upon all
the parishioners. The admonition of the bishop is succeeded by the
compulsion of the law. This clause of the Act, however, still expresses
hesitation; if the parishioner failed to pay, the poor rate could
not be immediately distrained; the offender must be brought before
two justices and if he remained disobedient was to be sent to gaol.
The old theory, that gifts for the poor were good for the giver and
should be voluntary, thus still left its traces though henceforward the
compulsory poor rate was a part of English law.
In this respect the statute merely adopts a principle which we
have seen was already enforced in some of the towns, and its chief
regulations do not in any way alter the control of relief exercised by
the municipal authorities. On the contrary, the mayors or other head
officers are expressly ordered to take the initiative in the towns and
are made legally responsible for the execution of the law.
Although the clauses against vagabonds are so unusually severe in this
statute the provision for the employment of the poor is very small.
This deficiency was therefore supplied by an Act passed four years
afterwards.
[Sidenote: 18 Eliz. c. 3.]
By a statute passed in the Parliament of 1575-6 a stock of wool,
flax, hemp, iron or other stuff was to be provided in every city and
corporate town and in every market town when thought necessary by the
justices "to the Intente Yowthe may be accustomed and brought up to
Laboure and Worke, and then not lyke to growe to bee ydle Roges and to
the Entente also that suche as bee alredye growen up in ydlenes and so
Roges at this present maye not have any juste excuse in sayeng they
cannot get any Service or Worcke ... and that other poore and needye
persons being willinge to worcke maye bee set on worcke." Moreover
Houses of Correction were to be built in every county and thither were
to be sent all who refused to do the work provided for them[133].
[133] 18 Eliz. c. 3.
These two Acts of 1572 and 1576 were three times continued[134] and
remained the basis of the English Poor Law until the whole question
was reopened and thoroughly discussed in 1597. In 1593, however, the
clauses relating to the death, imprisonment and boring through the ear
of vagabonds were repealed and the whipping punishments of the 22 Hen.
VIII. were again revived[135].
[134] 27 Eliz. c. 11; 29 Eliz. c. 5; 31 Eliz. c. 10.
[135] 35 Eliz. c. 7.
[Sidenote: 2. Legislation between 1576 and 1597.]
Between 1576 and 1597 three other statutes were passed dealing with
special aspects of the subject. The 31 Eliz. c. 7 was designed to
prevent an increasing number of poor families from settling in the
country. Only one family might live in one house and no house was to be
built in the country unless it had four acres of land attached[136].
The 35 Eliz. c. 6 was passed to prevent an increasing number of
poor families from settling in London. In the cities of London and
Westminster and for three miles round no new houses were to be built
except for people who were assessed in the subsidy book at £5 in goods
or £3 in lands. No existing houses were to be divided into tenements
and no "inmates[137]" were to be received.
[136] Exceptions were made in favour of cottages built within a mile
of the sea or a navigable river, and of those built for the use of
shepherds, forest rangers, workmen employed in mineral works, quarries
or mines or impotent poor allowed by the justices.
[137] I.e. lodgers.
A third Act also passed in 1592-3 made special provision for soldiers
and sailors. They were ordered to return to their own neighbourhoods,
and the justices were empowered to levy an additional rate for their
relief, which was to be distributed to them by Treasurers appointed in
every county for the purpose[138].
[138] 35 Eliz. c. 4.
But it was in 1597 that the many aspects of legislation affecting the
poor were thoroughly discussed.
[Sidenote: 3. The Bills and Statutes of 1597.]
During the years from 1594 to 1597 there was a great dearth of corn and
the price rose in some cases to four or five times the average price of
the preceding years. There were rebellions in many parts of the country
and great distress in all. Parliament met on the 24th Oct. 1597 and the
first measure read a first time by the House of Commons was one dealing
with forestallers, regrators and engrossers of corn[139]. Francis Bacon
then spoke about enclosures. For "Inclosure of grounds," he said,
"brings depopulation, which brings first Idleness; secondly decay
of Tillage; thirdly subversion of Houses and decay of charity, and
charges to the Poor; fourthly impoverishing the state of the realm."
He therefore brought forward two Bills on the subject, "not drawn with
a polished pen, but with a polished heart, free from affection and
affectation[140]." A committee was appointed to consider the matter,
which was to meet in the Exchequer Chamber in the afternoon of the same
day.
[139] D'Ewes' _Journals_, p. 551.
[140] D'Ewes' _Journals_, p. 551. Sir Francis Bacon "had perused the
Preambles of former statutes, and by them did see the inconvenience
of this matter, being then scarce out of the shell, to be now full
ripened."
Later, Mr Finch addressed the House, "shewing sundry great and horrible
abuses of idle and vagrant persons greatly offensive both to God and
the world; and further shewing the extream and miserable estate of the
Godly and honest sort of the poor Subjects of this realm," and it was
decided that these matters also should be referred to the committee
already appointed for enclosures[141].
[141] _Ib._ p. 552.
A few days later Sir Francis Hastings complained that this committee
had so far "spent all their travel only about the said Inclosures and
Tillage, and nothing about the said rogues and poor[142]." He therefore
asked that Bills on these subjects should be considered by the House.
At least seventeen Bills concerning this matter were brought forward
during the Session of 1597-8, and on Nov. 19th a large and influential
committee was appointed to which thirteen of these Bills were referred.
To this committee belonged some of the most famous men in the House,
for it included amongst its members Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Thomas
Cecil and Sir Edward Coke. There were others also who seem to have
had special knowledge in matters concerning the poor, such as Edward
Hext, a justice of Somerset, who had already written a long letter to
Cecil concerning vagabonds; and Sir Thomas Wroth, who seems to have
been the special champion of the poor[143]. Their meetings were held
in the Middle Temple Hall and continued for the greater part of the
Session[144].
[142] _Ib._ p. 555. Friday, 11 Nov. 1597.
[143] A resolution on the 25 Feb. 31 Eliz. was also proposed by him to
the effect that if any one should depart before the rising of the House
of the Speaker he should pay sixpence "to the use of the poor." D'Ewes'
_Journals_, p. 439. He also introduced the statute of 1601. Townshend's
_Historical Collections_.
[144] _Ib._ p. 559.
The titles of twelve of the Bills then considered give us some idea of
the many sides of the question that were then discussed. The following
drafts were submitted; the Bill for "erecting of Houses of Correction
and punishment of rogues and sturdy beggars and for levying of certain
sums due to the poor," for the "necessary habitation and relief of the
poor, aged, lame, and blind in every parish," for "relief of Hospitals,
poor prisoners and others impoverished by casual losses," for "supply
of relief unto the poor," for "petite forfeitures," for "the better
relief of souldiers and mariners," for "the better governing of
Hospitals and lands given to the relief of the poor," for "extirpation
of Beggery," "against Bastardy," "for setting the poor on work," and
"for erecting of hospitals or abiding and working houses for the
poor." These Bills concern both the relief of the poor and methods of
dealing with vagrants; so far as the former was concerned the committee
rejected all these proposals and brought in a new Bill of their own.
But the Bill for Houses of Correction was amended in the Commons and
sent up to the Lords[145].
[145] _Ib._ pp. 559 _seq._ Nov. 22nd. Eleven Bills were referred to the
committee, p. 561. Nov. 28th. Bill for erecting hospitals or abiding
and working houses for the poor. Nov. 30th. The new Bill was introduced.
In the Upper House also there was then much discussion. A bill "for
the relief of the poor in time of extream dearth of corn" apparently
originated there[146]. Most interest, however, was excited by the Bill
for Houses of Correction. The Lords appointed one committee to discuss
both Bills and amongst its members were Lord Burghley and Archbishop
Whitgift. Several amendments were proposed by the committee which
were not at first approved by the whole House. The Lord Chief Justice
was therefore consulted and some, if not all, of the additions were
accepted[147]. The Bill was sent down to the House of Commons with the
amendments. The Commons referred the matter to a committee in which Sir
Walter Raleigh took the chief part and which included Francis Bacon,
Wroth and Hext. Raleigh proposed a conference with the Lords on the
subject. The Lords assented to the conference with the proviso that
whatsoever had been amended or added by their Lordships "could not
now be altered by the orders of the House[148]." Sir Walter Raleigh
reported this reply to the Commons but complained of the manner in
which the answer had been delivered, "not using any of their Lordships'
former and wonted courteous manner of coming down towards the members
of this House to the Bar, but all of them sitting still in their
great Estates very solemnly and all covered[149]." A somewhat heated
discussion arose between the two Houses as to the way in which the
Lords should answer the Commons, and perhaps the friction occasioned
by this means contributed to the rejection of the Bill by the Commons
by 106 Noes to 66 Ayes[150]. A new Bill for rogues was hastily passed
through the House and sent up to the Lords.
[146] _Ib._ p. 531.
[147] _Ib._ pp. 533, 534.
[148] D'Ewes' _Journals_, p. 537.
[149] _Ib._ p. 580.
[150] _Ib._ p. 582. Tuesday, 17th Jan. 1597-8.
The final result of all these discussions, Bills, committees and
disputes was a series of Acts dealing with the problems concerning
vagrants and the poor from many different sides.
The most important Act of the series is the 39 Eliz. c. 3, formerly the
Bill for the relief of the Poor which the great committee appointed on
Nov. 19th in the Commons brought in after they had discussed twelve
other Bills on the subject. By this Act the relief of the poor was
placed mainly in the hands of the Churchwardens and four Overseers of
the Poor who were to be appointed every year at Easter by the justices
of the peace. These churchwardens and overseers with the consent of two
justices of the peace were to take such measures as were necessary for
setting poor children to work or binding them apprentice, for providing
the adult unemployed with work by means of a stock of hemp, flax,
wool, thread, iron or other materials and for relieving the impotent,
old and blind. For this last purpose they were empowered to build
Hospitals on waste lands. The funds were to be raised by the taxation
"of every inhabitant and every occupyer of Landes" and the rates might
be levied by distress. An appeal against the assessment might be taken
to Quarter Sessions but the assessment itself was to be made by the
parochial officers with the consent of two justices of the peace. Rich
parishes might be rated in aid of poorer ones and the forfeitures for
negligence, made under the Act, were to go to the use of the poor.
All beggars were declared rogues except those who begged for meat and
victuals in their own parish and soldiers or sailors regularly licensed
who were passing to their settlement.
A county rate was also to be levied on the parishes for the relief
of prisoners and for the support of almshouses and hospitals, and a
Treasurer for the County was to be appointed to administer this relief.
Within corporate towns, the head officers had the same authority as
justices of the peace in the country.
Another Act passed in this year was entitled "An Acte for the
punyshment of Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars[151]."
[151] 39 Eliz. c. 4.
Justices of the peace in Sessions were empowered to take measures for
the erection of Houses of Correction. The old statutes relating to
rogues and Houses of Correction were repealed and vagabonds were now
to be punished by whipping. They were then to be sent to the House of
Correction or gaol belonging to their place of settlement and from
thence were to be placed in service if able-bodied or in an almshouse
if impotent. If the rogue were likely to be dangerous to anyone he was
to be banished, and if he returned was to suffer death. It is a curious
part of this Act that the minister of the parish and one other person
were to assist by their advice with the punishment of these rogues.
The Bill for Hospitals probably resulted in a statute which re-enacted
the old provision that during the next twenty years anyone might found
a hospital or House of Correction etc. by simple enrolment in the Court
of Chancery and without Letters Patent[152]. Another of the thirteen
Bills considered by the committee seems to have become law under the
title of an "Acte to reforme Deceipts and Breaches of Trust towching
Lands given to charitable uses." It was there stated that the lands
appropriated to charitable uses had been misapplied and consequently
power was given to the Lord Chancellor etc. to issue writs to the
Bishop of the Diocese to inquire into any abuses of the kind and "to
set downe such Orders, Judgement and Decrees as the said good, godly
and charitable uses may be truely observed in full ample and most
liberall sort, according to the true intent and meaning of the founders
or donoures thereof[153]."
[152] _Ib._ c. 5.
[153] 39 Eliz. c. 6.
Two enactments of this series concern soldiers; one confirms the
statute of 1592-3 and increases the amount of the rate that justices
might impose for their relief[154]; the other provided especially
severe punishments against soldiers, mariners and idle persons who
wandered "as soldyers or mariners." But on the other hand if a soldier
or sailor could not obtain employment in his parish and applied to two
justices of the peace, they were obliged to find him work and could if
necessary tax the whole hundred for the purpose[155].
[154] _Ib._ c. 21.
[155] _Ib._ c. 17.
The legislation of this year is therefore almost a complete code on
the subject, but by far the most important part was the Act concerning
the relief of the poor. It was only passed as a temporary measure but
was re-enacted with a few alterations four years later. It was in
1597, therefore, and not in 1601 that the whole question was discussed
and that the main features of our English system of poor relief were
legally established.
This statute differs from earlier statutes, not in the creation of
Overseers of the Poor but in making them primarily responsible for
the administration of the law. The Act of 1572 first ordered the
appointment of Overseers or Collectors. But the burden of initiating
measures then rested primarily on the justices of the peace and the
head officials of the town. On the other hand the Act of 1597 ordered
the overseers to take the initiative, though the justices had still to
assent to their proposals and had to see that they did their duty. With
regard, however, to soldiers, vagrants and Houses of Correction the
justices were still mainly responsible.
[Sidenote: 4. General features of the discussion in Parliament.]
For seventy years Parliament had been making legislative experiments
with regard to the public relief of the poor and before 1597 at least
nine different plans had been tried. At last a law was produced which
as re-enacted four years later is unrepealed at the present day and for
more than two centuries was almost unaltered.
Parliament grudged neither its own time nor that of its ablest men to
solve the question. The personal side of the history of the discussion
is interesting. We see Sir Francis Bacon, to use his own phrase, "not
with polished pen but with polished heart," Raleigh neither as courtier
nor sea rover but as a stickler for the privileges of Parliament and
leader of a committee on the poor, Whitgift, not as ecclesiastical
disciplinarian, but as practical philanthropist. Burleigh appears but
seldom in the discussions but he too sat on the committee in the House
of Lords in 1597.
The most important part of the work seems to have been done by the
committee appointed by the Commons on November 19th. The law for the
relief of the poor was a new Bill framed by the committee after many
other Bills had been considered and seems to have been accepted at once
by the House. This committee was an enormous committee and the number
of bills considered by it was altogether exceptional, and it is to
the meetings of its members in the Middle Temple Hall that we owe the
making of a workable Poor Law and all its lasting effects on English
social life.
[Sidenote: Conclusions.]
Even by looking at the provisions of the statutes, we can see that
opinion on the subject had greatly changed since 1569. During the
earlier years of the period Parliament tried to exterminate beggary by
increasing the severity of the punishment of beggars. If we except the
law of 1547, this policy culminates in the statute of 1572, though,
even in 1572, increased provision for the impotent poor accompanied
increased severity towards able-bodied vagrants. The Act of 1576
indicates the beginning of a great change of thought and policy.
Legislators have given up the idea that the existence of masterless men
is entirely owing to the idleness and wickedness of the men themselves;
they provide materials for employment and Houses of Correction and so
recognise that the evil was partly caused by a want of training and by
a want of work. In 1597 there was a further change; the most severe
punishments against vagrants had been repealed and the most important
part of the legislation of this year was the statute for the relief of
the poor.
[Sidenote: 5. The chief characteristics of the action of the Privy
Council.]
We now turn to the second factor in the growth of the English system
of Poor Relief; the pressure exercised by the Privy Council on the
justices of the peace. The methods employed were twofold; sometimes
general measures were enforced through the whole country or through
large districts of the country, sometimes pressure was brought to bear
only on particular local officials.
The general measures adopted between 1569 and 1597 consist chiefly of
organised searches made for the discovery and punishment of rogues and
special precautions undertaken in order to prevent sudden alterations
in the price of corn. It is not until 1597 and afterwards that these
general measures concern the relief of the poor in ordinary times.
[Sidenote: 6. The whipping campaign.]
In 1569 there were disturbances in many parts of the country and a
serious rebellion in the North. The vagabonds of the neighbourhood
increased the disorder and the vagrants of the time were often rebels.
It was probably therefore quite as much for political as for social
reasons that the Privy Council undertook a whipping campaign against
vagrants between 1569 and 1572. In consequence of the orders of the
Council reports were sent both from the Council of the North and from
many justices of the Southern and Midland Counties. The reports from
the North indicate clearly that these measures for the repression of
vagrants and the relief of the poor were closely connected with the
maintenance of order. In May 1569 the President of the Council of
the North writes thus to the Queen from York: "We conferred with the
justices of the peace in the county for its good order, and finding
great quiet and content by the good execution of the statute for
vagabonds, we have taken order that once in every month there shall be
a secret search for that purpose throughout the shire, and certificates
sent to us until next November[156]." Almost immediately afterwards
the rebellion in the North broke out and was suppressed. In December
1572 Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, writes to Lord Burghley from York and
sends a copy of letters and articles sent to the justices of the peace
of every riding and all the towns named in his commission[157]. One
of these articles shows that the valiant rogues were often more than
beggars. "To stay the spreading of false and seditious rumours and the
sending of messages from the late rebels to trouble the quiet of the
realm, order is to be given in market towns and other places that all
suspected passengers, vagabonds, beggars, and rogues be punished with
severity and celerity, according to the late statute." But even here
measures for relieving the necessitous accompany those for repressing
vagrants, and the justices were ordered to send monthly accounts of the
proceedings taken by them to provide for the poor and impotent.
[156] _Cal. of State Papers_, Addenda, May 26, 1569. President and
Council of the North to the Queen.
[157] _Ib._, Dec. 28, 1572. Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, to Lord Burghley.
In the reports from the North the political motives of the Government
are obvious, but the character of the organisation is shown better in
the replies sent by the justices of the Southern and Midland counties.
[Sidenote: 7. Nature of general measures.]
To enforce these measures orders were decided upon by the Council and
then sent with letters directing their enforcement to the sheriffs and
justices of the peace of every county. These justices reported to the
Council the methods adopted by them to carry out these orders and the
condition of affairs within their jurisdictions.
Many of the reports are still to be found among the State Papers and
afford us considerable information as to the state of the country
and the extent to which the law was executed. The justices' reports
concerning vagrants from 1569 to 1571 are preserved from nineteen
different counties. These were made directly to the Privy Council. From
some counties like Gloucester and Northampton there are many reports,
but from others like Lincoln and Hereford only one was returned.
Although the justices of Holland in Lincolnshire only report once they
say they will keep watches every month in order that vagabonds may be
punished and suppressed[158].
[158] _Dom. State Papers, Queen Elizabeth_, Vol. 86, No. 12.
The accounts from different parts of the country vary very much.
The Oxfordshire answer is usually "All things be well[159]," but in
Northamptonshire there were many vagrants, and apparently they were
mostly sturdy rogues for they were usually "stocked" and whipped[160].
Gloucestershire is a fairly average county; in the country round
Cirencester we are told there were no "persons disorderly found," but
in the division of Thornbury there were ninety-two vagrant men and
fifteen children. In Tewkesbury and Deerhurst there were fifteen sturdy
vagrants, twenty impotent beggars, and four children[161].
[159] _Ib._, Vol. 81, 42. Hundred of Dorchester.
[160] _Ib._, Vol. 81, Nos. 14 and 44. Other reports from Northampton
show that many rogues were found and severely punished, Vol. 81, Nos.
45 and 46, Vol. 86, 22. That from Bullington however is an exception,
for there a watch was kept, but no vagrants were taken, Vol. 81, 16.
[161] Cirencester, Vol. 80, No. 42. The report for Thornbury and five
other hundreds is for the searches made on Aug. 20th and Aug. 21st,
1571. The division contained six hundreds, and was nearly a quarter
of the shire, Vol. 80, No. 33. Tewkesbury and Deerhurst, Vol. 80,
No. 59. At Normancross in Huntingdon eleven vagrants were found on
September 13th, of whom three were pedlars, one was a "tynker," and two
"minstrells," Vol. 83, 36. III.
Sometimes great numbers were attracted by particular causes. Thus from
Cambridgeshire some reports state, "No such kynde of persons there
were found[162]," but in four hundreds forty-seven were arrested,
"the number whereof were so greate at that present by reason of the
confluence to and from Sturbridge fayer[163]."
[162] In the hundreds of Cheveley, Staine, Staplowe and Flendish and in
the Isle of Ely there were no vagrants found in the two watches kept on
Aug. 20th and Sept. 12th, Vol. 83, No. 36.
[163] In the hundreds of Wetherley, Thrylow, Armyngford and Stowe. At
Chesterton, Papworth and North Stowe, also in Cambridgeshire, eleven
vagrants were found and punished on the three days August 20th, Sept.
12th, and Oct. 12th, 1571, Vol. 83, No. 36.
When we remember that all the vagrants were taken in two or three
searches only and that it is probable that the more capable had ample
notice, the results indicate a considerable amount of disorder. On the
other hand, the fact that when the proportions are given so many are
impotent, and the frequent presence of children lead us to believe that
these wanderers were more often people in want than wicked plunderers
of their fellow-countrymen.
These orders of the Privy Council were directed towards the decrease
of vagrants, but in the replies of the justices we see the close
connection between measures of this kind and the relief of the poor.
Thus in Essex and Surrey advantage was sometimes taken of the clause
permitting the justices to put vagrants to service. At Barking and
Walthamstow masterless men were appointed to masters, and at Brixton
and Wallingford three out of thirteen were put to service[164]. But
the report from Worcestershire is more interesting and confirms the
information derived from the speech made by Mr Sands during the debate
in Parliament on the Bill of 1571[165]. The justices there said that
they had already taken measures to repress beggars and so found very
few in the searches now made; the few that remained there were licensed
by them but the "greter parte of the poore ar provyded for where they
dwell[166]." We can thus see that, though this whipping campaign
concerns vagrants, the question of vagrants was inseparably connected
with the care of the poor, and that these measures, although undertaken
with a view of preserving order, tended to lead to the better
organisation of relief.
[164] Barking and Walthamstow, Vol. 80, No. 26. Brixton, Vol. 80, 44. V.
[165] See above.
[166] Vol. 80, No. 55.
The next series of measures undertaken by the Privy Council concerns
therefore the supply of the markets during years of high-priced corn.
Even in the reign of Henry VIII. London and Bristol had bought a public
store of corn in order to prevent scarcity, and in 1528 and 1549 the
Privy Council had regulated the buying and selling of grain in order
to lower the price but had failed to obtain much result[167]. Between
1569 and 1597 there were three seasons in which corn was exceptionally
scarce, 1572, 1586, and 1594 to 1597. In each of these the Privy
Council issued similar orders and their action became more vigorous and
more successful as time went on.
[167] See p. 51.
The sudden rises in the price of corn were in a great measure caused by
the narrowness of the area from which a supply could come. There were
few means of rapid communication; the roads were bad and the supplies
of grain available for a particular district might be in the hands of
very few men. It was quite possible for the dealers of corn to prevent
corn from coming to a market, to buy up the supplies already there and
afterwards raise the price to an artificial height. This was considered
unfair according to the commercial morality of the time, and when it
was done in the case of a necessary of life it caused great hardship to
the poor.
In 1572 enquiries were made as to the price of corn in the Western
counties and in Norfolk and Suffolk. The replies received show that it
varied considerably even in adjacent counties. In Somerset best wheat
sold for twenty shillings a quarter, in Dorset it fetched sixteen,
it cost eighteen shillings in Norfolk, while in Suffolk it would be
purchased for only fourteen[168]. The next year a commission was issued
and the commissioners were empowered to order the farmers to bring
corn to market in proportion to the amount they possessed[169].
[168] _Dom. State Papers, Queen Elizabeth._
Norfolk and Suffolk, July 31st, 1572, Vol. 89, 1.
Norfolk. Suffolk.
Wheat 18_s._ Wheat 14_s._
Rye 13_s._ 4_d._ Rye 12_s._
Barley 7_s._ 4_d._ Malt 8_s._ 8_d._
Western Counties, Vol. 88, No. 52.
Dorset. Somerset. Devon. Cornwall.
Best wheat 16_s._ a quarter 20_s._ 26_s._ 8_d._ 48_s._
Seconds 13_s._ 4_d._ " 17_s._ 4_d._ 24_s._ 44_s._
Rye 10_s._ " 16_s._ 21_s._ 4_d._ 32_s._
Barley 6_s._ " 8_s._ 8_d._ 16_s._ 26_s._ 8_d._
Abundant--able to export. Sent to Devon,
but no more
to spare.
It is difficult to compare the prices in Devon and Cornwall with the
rest of the counties because the size of the bushel varied in Cornwall
and was often twice as great as that used elsewhere; in Devon also the
Winchester measures were not always used.
[169] The commission is dated Oct. 21, 1573: it attributes the high
prices to the greediness of corn-dealers who secretly export abroad,
and it empowers commissioners to order farmers to bring to market such
portions of grain as they prescribe, and to sell the same at reasonable
prices. They were also to advertise the Council of their difficulties,
to the intent the Council might assist them. _D. S. P._ Vol. 92,
No. 41. The rough draft of the Commission is amended in Cecil's
handwriting. _D. S. P._ Vol. 92, No. 40.
So far the measures adopted closely resembled those of 1527-8, but in
1586 the organisation had become more developed.
In April and May the Council issued letters to the justices of the
maritime districts and to twenty-three other counties ordering them
to see the markets supplied with corn and to prevent the abuses of
corn-dealers[170]. Notwithstanding there were symptoms of discontent.
The workmen in the west of England were suffering not only because the
price of corn was high but because there was a lack of employment in
the cloth trade. At Romsey certain rioters "pretend that the present
dearthe of corn and want of work hathe mooved them to attempt that
outrage." In Framloyde, Gloucestershire, there was "a mutinee by
the common people, who rifled a bark laden with malt." The justices
responsible for Romsey were told to have regard to "their Lordships'
late letters for the serving of the markettes and to deale with the
principall clothemen and traders theraboutes for the setting of the
people on worke[171]." Letters of the same kind were also sent to
Gloucestershire[172] and Somerset. In the latter we are told that the
spinners, carders and workers of wool lack "their comon and necessarie
foode, a matter not onlie full of pittie in respect of the people
but of dangerous consequence to the state." Her Majesty, therefore,
"tendring the one and careful of th' other" directs the justices to
call the clothiers before them and "require and command such of them
as have stockes and are of habillitie to employ the same as they have
heretofore don so as by them the poore maie be set on worke[173]."
[170] On April 29th, 1586, these letters were sent to the maritime
counties. On May 7th to eight of the home counties, and on May 22nd to
seventeen other counties and to Wales. _Privy Council Register_, Vol.
XIV. pp. 79, 98 and 119.
[171] _Ib._, p. 91, 6th May, 1586.
[172] See below.
[173] _Privy Council Register_, Vol. XIV. p. 93, 6 May, 1586. The
difficulty in the cloth trade was connected with the concessions
granted to the Merchant Adventurers. Their privileges forced the
English manufacturer to sell cloth to them only. When there was
a slackness in trade these concessions were always questioned or
annulled. In December, 1586, the Company say they will raise a stock
and buy more cloths than they can at present sell so that the workfolk
of Somerset and Wilts can be employed. If this fails they consent
that the trade shall be thrown open. This was apparently afterwards
done, but difficulties were still thrown in the way of the "Merchant
strangers." _Privy Council Register_, p. 237, Sept. 1587. The Earl of
Leicester wrote both to Walsingham and Burleigh on the subject. In
his letter to Walsingham he says the towns of the West, Bristol and
Hampton, are falling into decay, and there is an "exstraeme cry and
compleynt of y^e poore for lack of work such as have bin sett on work
heretofore by clothiers." The cause, the clothiers say, is because
they "can not have reasonable price nor utterance for their cloth in
London." He says that "sondry of the most hablest ... are worthie great
favo^r and thanks for they to ther great loss kepe more now on than
ever they did for the poor's sake." _Dom. State Papers, Queen Eliz._,
Vol. 200, Nos. 5 and 10.
With regard to the scarcity of corn the Council also took further
action. Burleigh carefully considered and amended a proclamation for
dealing with the difficulty[174]. The three judges, Popham, Mildmay
and Manwood, to whom the matter was referred for consideration, made
a series of recommendations[175]." These were embodied in a set of
orders, the draft of which is amended in Burleigh's own hand[176].
After being signed by the Council[177] these orders were issued early
in 1587 to the justices throughout the country[178]. They probably
formed the nucleus of the Scarcity Book of Orders of the earlier
Stuarts which in turn was the forerunner of the Orders and Directions
of January 1630/1.
[174] Lansdowne MSS., Nos. 48, 51.
[175] _Ib._, Vol. 48, No. 52.
[176] _Ib._ See Appendix.
[177] The Council appear to have held a meeting on the last day of the
year 1586 expressly to sign these orders. _Cal. of State Papers_, Dec.
31st, 1586.
[178] _Privy Council Register_, Vol. XIV. p. 277. On Jan. 2nd, 1586/7,
letters were sent to the "Lordes Archbishopes of Canterbury and Yorke
signifyinge her Majesties care for the releefe of the poore in this
tyme of derthe and scarsety for redresse wherof certen orders, by her
specyall commandement, are devysed by theyr Lordships; for furtherance
of which purpose theyr Lordships are prayed to geve order to the
Bishopes and Ordynaryes under theyr Dioces to instruct the curates,
ministers or preachers of the Word to exhorte the (people is here
struck out) of habylytye to extend charitye to the poore and them to
beare this visytation of God with patyence &c." Letters to the same
effect were written to the Lord Presydent of the Northe and the Lo.
Pres. of Wales, also "to all the sheeres of the Realme dyrected to the
Shryves and Justyces of the Peace."
These directions of 1587 commanded the appointment of juries who
were to make an elaborate survey of the amount of corn possessed by
everyone, and to state the number of people belonging to the different
households. The justices were then to allow each owner to retain as
much corn as was necessary for the food of his househood and for seed,
but were to order the rest to be brought to market. They were moreover
to use "all good meanes and perswasions ... that the pore may be served
of corne at convyent and charitable prices." They were also to see to
the execution of the laws for the relief of the poor, "that the maymed
or hurt soldiers and all other impotent persons be carefullye seene
unto to be relieved," and "that the justices doe their best to have
convenient stocke to be provided in everye division or other place
accordinge to the statut for settinge the pore a worke[179]."
[179] Lansdowne MSS., Vol. 48, No. 54. Printed in the Appendix.
Many reports from the justices were sent to the Council in answer both
to their letters and to the more elaborate set of orders of 1587. The
justices divided themselves so that some were responsible for each
division of the county[180]. They were present on market-days and saw
if there were a sufficient supply of corn, and tried to persuade the
owners to sell it at a moderate price[181]. They also took measures to
check the dealers in corn or badgers. A difference of opinion seems
to have existed as to the usefulness of these dealers. The Privy
Council thought them mischievous, but the justices of Gloucester find
them "honestlie demeaning themselves to be profytable members of this
our Commonwelth[182]." The justices often, as in Norfolk[183], made
detailed enquiries as to the amount of corn held by each farmer and the
number of his household, and in accordance with the information thus
acquired they ordered, as in Wootton, Oxfordshire, every corn holder
to bring a proportionate quantity of his grain to market[184]. In
Gloucestershire they went farther and also fixed the price at which it
was to be sold[185].
[180] Lincolnshire. The justices have divided themselves and sent a
list of those allotted to the different divisions. _Dom. State Papers,
Queen Elizabeth_, Vol. 189, No. 35. From Surrey the names of the
justices allotted to the different markets are enclosed. _Ib._, Vol.
189, No. 37. The names of the justices for the several divisions of
Huntingdonshire are enclosed, with a report signed by the Bishop of
Lincoln and a Henry and an Oliver Cromwell, &c.
[181] Berkshire. The justices attend the markets and "see the selling
of each kind of graine there at such prices as shall seme most
fittest." _D. S. P._, Vol. 189, 49.
Warwickshire. The justices of Hemlingford have attended the markets
"aswell to see the poore people provided necessarie corne as also to
use o^r best endeavours to ease them in the prices therof as much as we
could." _Ib._, Vol. 198, No. 77. III.
[182] _D. S. P._, Vol. 189, 50. The justices have licensed a certain
number.
[183] Detailed reports were sent from Gyltcross, Shropham, South
Greenhoe, Wayland and Grimshawe. Vol. 191, 12. See Appendix. Most of
the replies sent in 1587 report the appointment of juries to search the
barns for corn. _Dom. State Papers, Queen Eliz._, Vol. 199, 43. I. II.;
Vol. 200, 16. The justices responsible for the nine hundreds of Caistor
Sessions say that in their division there were 13,536 "handicraftesmen
and poore people that have no corn."
[184] Vol. 198, No. 42. Considerably over a hundred farmers are ordered
to bring definite quantities of each kind of grain to particular
markets, generally either that of Woodstock or that of Oxford.
Vol. 199, No. 43. The farmers of Buckinghamshire have been bound to
bring their corn "by porcions weeklye to such marketts as we thinke
most fittest."
In Lancaster order has been taken that those who have to sell "shall
bring and sell the same in open markette or otherwise to their poore
neighbours." Vol. 200, No. 54. IV. In the hundreds of Caistor Sessions
also the poor people might buy away from the markets and the farmers
might deduct any grain sold to them from the quantity they were to
bring to market. Vol. 198, No. 21.
[185] The justices of Gloucestershire say that in their several
allotments they have "visited the marketts, seen the poore relieved
as we may, searched the barnes, storehouses and grenyers of farmers
and others hable to furnishe the marketts with corne, and having
consideration to theyr private families have in discretion appointed
them a certeyne quantytie of certen kindes of graine to be by them
brought weekelie to the markett accordinglie, and of such our
appointments have kepte books in writinge and doe finde therapon, that
as yet the said farmers and others doe fullfill our appointments in
this behalfe without any disobedyence. And further according to the
said your lettres we have sett downe several prices upon everie kinde
of graine within the severall divisions of this Shire, as in respecte
of the distaunce of the places and the present tyme of necessytie we
have thought most convenyent, after which rate we will herafter in our
several limitts have care to see the same solde as may be beste for the
relief of our poore neighbours." _Dom. State Papers, Queen Eliz._, Vol.
189, 50.
The Privy Council certainly trusted much to the justices, and both
farmers and markets were thoroughly regulated. One cannot wonder that
sometimes the corn owners were disobedient[186], though on the whole
the orders seem to have been loyally carried out. Even in our own
time the poor of Italy and Spain have suffered much from an attempted
"corner" in grain in spite of our rapid means of communication and
worldwide source of supply. The circumstances of 1587 must have made
organisation necessary, for the orders were successful, and when
reissued in 1594 it was especially noted that in 1587 they had done
"much good for the stay of y^e dearthe and for y^e relieving of y^e
poore[187]."
[186] A letter was written from the Council to the justices of Notts
stating that the greate quantitie of corne of one Freston "should be
employed for relieving the necessitie of the shire." If he refuse
to follow their directions they are to take the corn and cause a
"quantitie to be solde at reasonable prices in the markettes adjoyning
for the reliefe of the poore people."
[187] Egerton MSS. 2644, f. 55.
Already in 1586 additional measures were occasionally taken for the
relief of the labourers and handicraftsmen. In Norfolk, "the poorer
sorte are by persuasion sarved at meaner pryces[188]"; while in the
county of Nottingham a philanthropic Duke of Rutland adopted the
following expedient, afterwards employed by public authority. When
it was known that there was likely to be a scarcity of grain, the
Duke caused his corn to be sold in small quantities to the poor two
shillings and eight pence under the market price. The justices tell
us that by these means "the greedines of a number was frustrated, the
poore releved, and the expectancy of excessive dearthe stayed[189]."
[188] Vol. 191, No. 12. See Appendix. In Bedfordshire the justices
for the hundreds of Manshed, Flett and Redbornestoke state that "the
farmers do sell to the poore labourers barley for xx^d y^e bushell and
ii^s the most," and that have so "promysed to do untill August next."
The ordinary price of barley as reported in the same document was 2_s._
8_d._ the bushel. Vol. 200, No. 10. I.
[189] Vol. 190, 14.
But, although the orders issued in 1587 especially command the
provision as well of adequate support for the impotent as of work for
the able-bodied, very few of the replies report any special action with
reference to these matters. There are however one or two exceptions.
Thus Arthur Hopton, a justice responsible for the hundred of Blithing,
states that 500 poor in adjacent towns were relieved with "bred and
other victuall," and that this should be continued for twenty-three
weeks[190]. Certain justices of Hemlingford also give an especial
charge to the collectors to see that all "the poore aged and impotent
persons w^tin everie township and hamlet be sufficientlie releeved as
they ought to be," and to "adde a weekelie supplie to the same former
reliefe," if the relief they had previously ordered were "too slender
for them by reason of the dearth." The justices also especially charge
the overseers[191] to see "that all the poore and idle persons in
everie towneship and hamlet w^{ch} are able to labour and want worke be
daylie set on worke ... towards the getting of their living according
also to the former orders made to that effect[192]." But generally the
action taken by the justices both in 1586 and 1587 mainly concerns the
supply of corn. Still the whole organisation was made chiefly in the
interests of the poor, and both the reports and the orders themselves
notice this fact[193].
[190] Vol. 198, 74.
[191] The appointment of overseers or collectors for the poor was first
ordered by the statute of 1572. In Hemlingford they seem to have been
two distinct offices.
[192] Vol. 198, No. 77. IV.
[193] In the orders themselves the justices are ordered to "use all
other good meanes that ar not menconed in these orders that the
marketts be well served and the pore releyved ... duringe this time of
dearth." The letters sent with them stated that the orders were devised
because of "Her Majestie's care for the releefe of the poore in this
tyme of derthe." See note above. Many reports show that the orders were
intended to help the poor. One from Kington, Warwickshire, is signed
by the Sir Thomas Lucy of Shakespearian fame and by Richard Verney.
The report is said to be sent "in the execution of the orders sett
downe by the lords of her mat^s moste honorable privie councell for the
desposinge of corne and graine in reliefe of the poore and furnishinge
the marketts." _Ib._, Vol. 198, 77. I. See also Beds. justices report
orders taken "for the staie of the dearthe of graine and the reliefe of
the poore therof." _D. S. P._ Vol. 200, No. 10.
In Buckinghamshire overseers were appointed "to see in our absence all
things dulye performed as well for the reliefe of the poorer sort as
otherwise." Vol. 199, I. II. IV. V., &c.
In 1597, as well as in 1586, the Privy Council endeavoured to supply
the poor with corn at reasonable rates, but it will be more convenient
to consider that attempt with the rest of the events of those years of
scarcity from 1594 to 1597[194].
[194] See Chapter VII.
As a rule in the reign of Elizabeth the object of these scarcity
measures was not so much to sell to the poor under price, as to arrange
by organisation that the supply of corn should be equally distributed
over the whole year, and that consequently the price of corn should
be more even for everybody. It was rather to prevent monopoly than
to organise doles. It was undertaken chiefly in the interests of the
poor because a lack in the supply of corn affected them most; it did
not only mean hardship, it meant starvation. It was undertaken by the
Privy Council partly with the desire of repressing disorder, because
insurrections and scarcity usually occurred together, and it was the
object of the Government to keep the people in their "obedience[195]."
But already the changed feeling of Parliament is found also in the
Privy Council: measures of organised relief were seen to be the most
effectual method of repression, and the closer study of the subject
resulted in greater care for the poor.
[195] In Devonshire the justices say there is not so much corn as they
could wish, but they think there will be "no greate inconvenience or
disorder." Vol. 189, 51. In Bedfordshire the report states no "manner
of person poore or riche founde anye falte for wante," nor did they
"move or attempte anye manner of disorder or strive for the same or
for any other cause, but were and remayne in verie good and dutyfull
obedience, god be thanked." Vol. 191, 6.
These general measures for the repression of vagrants and the supply
of corn are not only important to our subject because they directly
concern the relief of the poor; they are even more important on
account of their indirect connection therewith. In the first place
these measures brought the authorities both of the nation and of the
country into contact with the poor, and they were thus led to devise
more extensive measures for bettering the condition of their needy
neighbours; it became more and more a habit with them to regard matters
concerning the poor as a department of Government.
In the second place, by means of these measures dealing with corn and
vagrants the organisation was prepared which was afterwards used for
the administration of the relief of the poor. The letters of the
Privy Council to the justices, the allotment of the justices to their
different divisions, the supervision of the judges, and the reports to
the Privy Council were all utilised by the system established under
Charles I.
If this later system had been administered by a body of officials
untrained in the same kind of work, and unused to these methods
of administration, it would have had little chance of being well
administered. Such degree of success as was attained must have been at
least partially due to the fact that the measures for the punishment
of vagabonds and for the provision of grain preceded the more detailed
orders for the relief of the poor. The new orders were thus executed
by county and municipal officials trained to similar duties and used
to like methods of administration, and it was in this way that the
Elizabethan measures of scarcity have an important influence on the
growth of the English administration of the Poor Law.
[Sidenote: 8. The influence of the Privy Council upon the Corporation
of London.]
But sometimes the measures of the Privy Council were not general:
pressure was placed only on particular local officials. We will first
examine a few cases of this kind concerning the City of London. We have
already seen that in 1569 there were two sharp letters of the Privy
Council to the Lord Mayor censuring him for his neglect in matters
concerning the vagrants and poor[196]. In 1573 the Lord Mayor refers
again to the displeasure of the Council and had apparently received a
similar letter[197]. In this way therefore the Privy Council censured
neglect and commanded local officials to remedy the abuses of their
administration.
[196] See Chapter IV.
[197] _Journals_, Vol. XX. 1 f. 42, March 14, 1572/3.
Sometimes we see the authorities of London asking the advice of the
Council with regard to the measures that they have themselves prepared.
Orders for the poor were drawn up in 1579 and again in 1594, and in
both cases the Lords of the Privy Council were consulted[198]. The
Lords of the Council also call attention to particular difficulties.
In 1583 they recommend special measures to prevent the increase of
Irish beggars[199], and they repeatedly write to order increased
vigilance in enforcing the regulations against small houses and
tenements which have been newly erected[200]. Special matters are
sometimes arranged by them; in 1594 the City rulers are told to meet
the justices of Middlesex in order that they may take joint action
to repress vagrants[201]. Even details come under the notice of the
members of the Privy Council, and in 1596 they directed the Lord Mayor
to see that the corn in a particular ship was sold to the poor and not
bought up by dealers[202].
[198] _Journals_, 14 May, 1579, XX. No. 2, f. 483. "This daye the
residue of the Booke devised for the settinge of the poore on worke in
Bridewell was redd to the Comon Counsell." ... It was agreed "that it
shabe, as it is preferred to the consideracon of the lordes of your
ma^{tys} pryvie Counsell by the whole concent of this Court of Comon
Counsell and that Sir Rowlande Haywarde, Sir James Hawes, Mr Alderman
Woodcross, etc. shall travell in preferringe the same booke to the
lordes of the Counsell." 17 Nov. 1594, _Remembrancia_, II. 74.
[199] _Journals_, 21 f. 329 _b_, 28 Dec. 1583.
[200] _Remembrancia_, I. 495, 496, 514; II. 17.
[201] _Ib._, II. 75.
[202] _Ib._, II. 59.
The Council thus was apparently very well informed as to the condition
of affairs and had power to interfere with effect even in matters of
detail whenever the rulers of London were inclined to be slothful.
[Sidenote: 9. The pressure exercised by the Privy Council on other
local authorities.]
We have not the same detailed information with regard to other towns,
but we can see that this kind of action on the part of the Lords of the
Council was by no means confined to London. We find them writing to
Burghley himself and insisting on the appointment of Provost Marshals
in Hertfordshire and Essex who were to take especial care to repress
vagrants and idle persons[203]; they rebuke the Devonshire justices for
not providing properly for old soldiers and sailors[204]. They write
to Cambridge and order that care be taken to prevent the increase in
the number of tenements in the town[205], and they especially commend
the Norfolk justices for erecting a "fourme for the punishment of
loyterers, stubborne servantes, and the settinge of vagabondes, roages
and other idle people to work, after the manner of Bridewell[206]".
[203] _Cal. of State Papers_, March 17, 1590.
[204] _Quarter Sessions under Queen Eliz._, A. Hamilton, p. 19.
[205] The Privy Council write that they "are given to understand that
divers of the inhabitants of the Town of Cambridge seeking their
own private gain with the public hurt and incommodity of the whole
University and Town have heretofore accustomed to build and erect
houses upon sundry spare grounds in and about the said Town; but of
late and at this present especially they do not only increase and
continue the same but do more usually divide one house into many
small tenements and those for the most part do let and hire out to
the meanest and poorest persons, which tenements ... are a means ...
as we are informed whereby the University and Town are overburthened
in yearly allowance towards the maintenance of the poor." The Mayor
and Vice-chancellor therefore with the assistance of the "best and
discretest persons and officers of the University and Town" are to
cause inquiry to be made as to how many tenements there are and as to
how many people inhabit them, and are also to find out if the tenements
had been built or divided within ten years. They were then to take
measures to alter as many tenements and to remove as many of the
inmates as they should deem expedient. The letter is dated June 8th,
1584, and is signed by Burghley, Walsingham, and several other members
of the Privy Council. Cooper, _Annals of Cambridge_, Vol. II. p. 398.
[206] _Cal. of State Papers_, Vol. 133, No. 56.
There is enough to show that the Privy Council was often active and
that its interference had a considerable effect, but that before 1597
this interference was only occasionally exercised.
This pressure exerted by the Privy Council on justices and municipal
authorities becomes the most important factor in the development of
the English system of poor relief in the next century. Law was not yet
enforced merely because it had been enacted, and in regard to the poor
no force of continued habit as yet made public opinion compel negligent
officials to do their duty. So far men objected to pay rates; they were
not firmly convinced of the duty of the state to relieve the poor.
The pressure of the Privy Council was therefore necessary to enforce
the law. But the habit of interference in these matters and the
organisation that alone could make interference have much effect grew
very slowly. Before 1597 we can see this habit of interference and
this organisation growing, but as yet it is only utilised occasionally
and to meet some special emergency; it is not part of a general system
which almost everywhere commanded obedience.