CHAPTER VII.

1569-1597.

LOCAL ORGANISATION OF POOR RELIEF AND THE EVENTS OF THE YEARS 1594-1597.

1. The organisation of London with regard to the poor.

2. The organisation of Norwich.

3. The action of other towns,

(1) Concerning the settlement of new-comers.

(2) Concerning the unemployed.

(3) Concerning the raising of funds.

4. The events of the years of scarcity 1594-1597.

5. Summary of the period 1569-1597.

Improvement in the organisation for the relief of the poor during

the period from 1569 to 1597 is found in the local as well as in the

central government. We will now look at the local side of the question.

It is possible to obtain a fair idea of the kind of action adopted by

the rulers of shire and borough by examining first the measures of

London and Norwich in detail, and secondly some examples of the methods

of other towns and counties.

[Sidenote: 1. The organisation of London with regard to the poor.]

We have considered the action of the Privy Council with regard to

questions affecting the poor in London, but we have not as yet looked

at the measures themselves.

Some of these were designed to carry into effect the Act of 1572 which

we have seen was the first law that gave statutory authority for

compulsory assessment for the relief of the poor. In Sept. 1572 the

Mayor issued a precept to the aldermen which commanded each in his ward

to see that the constables and other "sad and discrete personnes[207]"

made certain inquiries about the poor of every parish. They were to

find out the names and surnames "of suche aged, decayed and impotent

poore people" as "of necessitie be compelled to lyve by almes," and

were to ascertain who had been born in the parish or had lived there

three years before the beginning of the last Parliament.

[207] _Journals of the Common Council of London_, Vol. XX. No. 1, f.

15b.

The Lord Mayor in issuing this precept relied on the municipal and

not on the parochial authorities. It was apparently unsuccessful, for

later commands were sent to the aldermen on Sept. 5th ordering them

to make these same inquiries through the churchwardens[208]. Three

days later more detailed instructions were given to the same effect.

The churchwardens and other responsible men in every parish were "to

examyne which poore are to be releved in everye of the said parishes

and to be provided for according to the last statute made for that

purpose." The aldermen were to set down the names of the poor and

how long they had dwelt in the City and how much each of them ought

to receive "that they nede not begg." They were then to make an

assessment of "everye Inhabitant that nowe payeth nothinge" to help

his needy neighbours and, if there was any cause to increase the sum

paid by any rich man, they were to note what increased amount they

thought necessary[209]. Thus the old voluntary payments seem to become

the basis of the first assessment under the new statute, while a few

wealthy and stingy givers were coerced.

[208] _Journals of the Common Council of London_, Vol. XX. No. 1, f. 24.

[209] _Ib._ f. 25.

Unfortunately the fund thus raised was not sufficient and efforts

were made to reduce the expenditure and to collect the whole of the

amount assessed. The aldermen were to summon the governors of the

hospitals and were to interview the poor people themselves as well as

the churchwardens. They had then the unpleasant task of lowering the

pensions already granted because "the colleccon all readie appoynted

will not serve to advance suche ample pencons." They had also carefully

to see that no one received anything who was not born in the parish

or an inhabitant for the full time appointed by the statute[210]. By

these means it was hoped that it would not be necessary to spend

more than the sum raised by this semi-voluntary poor-rate. In March,

1573, the contributions for the next year became due while some of the

contributions for the previous year were still in arrear; the Lord

Mayor found it necessary to complain of the negligent execution of the

statute for the poor "by reason whearof this Cittie before this tyme

bearinge the name of a Lanterne to all other the Quene's maiestie's

domynions in example of good order and due execucon of good Laws is

accompted to some farre behynde other places in the due execucon of

this statute to the greate greffe of well willers to the same[211]."

Henceforward every part of the precept concerning the poor was to be

"dulye and carefullie put in execucon."

[210] _Ib._ f. 32 b.

[211] _Journals_, f. 42.

By next year it was evident that even if the assessments were properly

paid the funds would be insufficient. The Mayor therefore fell back

on the old plan of collections in the churches after the Sunday

sermons[212]. An ancient custom of the City was also utilised. The

Companies in state attended by turns the sermons in Easter week at St

Mary's Spittal. Special collections were then to be made for the poor

and the money given to the Mayor that it might be distributed where

there was most need "by the handes of good and godly citizens[213]."

[212] _Ib._ Vol. XX., No. 1, f. 119.

[213] _Ib._ f. 122 b, 8th April, 1574.

In these precepts of 1572, 1573, and 1574 the City rulers employ

voluntary methods and avoid compulsory poor-rates as far as possible.

It is however evident that the voluntary subscriptions were inadequate.

The municipal basis of the organisation is strongly marked; the sums

collected under the assessments were to be paid to the governors of

Christ's Hospital and the chief part of the money seems to have been

expended by the City and not by the parochial officials[214].

[214] There is a statement of the accounts of St John's, Walbrook,

between Sept. 10th, 1572 and Sept. 11th, 1573. From this we learn that

the collectors received £16. 17_s._ 5_d._, and that £1. 6_s._ 8_d._ was

lacking of the assessed sum. £5. 3_s._ 4_d._ had been paid to the poor

of the parish, £9. 15_s._ 9_d._ to the Treasurer of Christ's Hospital,

while the collectors owed the remaining 18_s._ 4_d._ _Cal. of State

Papers_, Addenda, Sept. 11th, 1573. So far as this parish is concerned

therefore the amount paid to the central authorities was much greater

than that distributed in local pensions.

The City rulers also attempted to deal with the poor all over London

by an organisation founded upon a series of orders or articles for the

poor. In 1576 a set of regulations was issued dealing with the duties

of "the parish," of the "constables" and of "surveyors" with regard

to vagrants. The parishioners were to choose a surveyor every Sunday

who was to attend every night for a week and help the constable in the

search for sturdy beggars. Every fortnight at least the constable,

beadle and churchwardens were to visit the houses of all the poor

people in their districts and were to order any of the new arrivals who

were unable to support themselves without burdening the parish to be

sent away[215]. These commands only concerned vagrants and new comers

and are of far less importance than the regulations of 1579.

[215] _Journals_, Vol. XX., No. 2, f. 323.

In that year orders were issued which if carried out would have

provided methods for dealing with all classes of the poor and, but for

the Elizabethan phrases and Elizabethan whippings, we should be much

more inclined to think that they were passed by a London County Council

in 1899, than by the Corporation of the City in 1579. In August of that

year the Common Council resolved that "an Acte for the poore" should be

drawn up and considered, and a few days later the book was read to the

Council and "established as a lawe[216]."

[216] _Ib._ f. 498, 499 b, Aug. 4th, 1579. These orders have been

printed, and are often dated 1587. But they were first established in

1579 under the title of "Orders appointed to be executed in the Cittie

of London for setting roges and idle persons to worke and for releefe

of the poor."

There is a double basis for the administration of these regulations:

the vagrants were dealt with by the municipal system working through

the hospitals; the impotent by the parochial officials. Children

and the able-bodied poor came under the jurisdiction of both. The

vagrants were to be brought to Bridewell and there divided into three

classes. Those who were not diseased and did not belong to the City

were to be "dealt with according to the lawe," that is, they were to

be whipped and sent to their settlement. Those who were ill were to

go to St Thomas's or St Bartholomew's and when cured to return to

Bridewell and be treated in the same manner. But the "sturdy beggars"

whom "the Cittie by law is charged to provide for" were to be received

into Bridewell: they were to be "there kept with thin diet onely

sufficing to sustaine them in health" and were to be made to work at

the occupation for which they were most fitted[217]. If any vagrant

was skilful in any of these occupations and a citizen were willing to

employ him, the governors were to try to make arrangements for him

to be taken into service. Over the rest of the London poor also the

parochial officials were commanded to keep a strict watch. In each

parish the constable, churchwardens, collectors and six parishioners

were to make a general survey of all their needy neighbours. The name,

age and sex of each was to be noted and pensions were to be given to

those who were disabled. Children were to go to Christ's Hospital if

there was room, and if not were to be provided for by the parish. The

able-bodied poor were told to make "their mone" to the churchwardens or

collectors and were to obtain a "Bill" signed by two of them and then

to be provided with work at Bridewell or elsewhere.

[217] Orders 3 to 8, printed edition.

It is even suggested both that all the poor should be visited "daily if

it may be ... to see how they apply theyr work" and that "Such youth,

and other as are able to labour and may have worke and shal be found

idle shall have some maner of correction by the parents, or otherwise

as shalbe thought good in the parish. And if they wyll not amend they

shalbe sent to Bridewell to be reasonably corrected there." Thus the

two main features of these orders were first, that the parochial

officers were to exercise a very strict surveillance over all the poor

of their district and were to provide the impotent poor with outdoor

relief, and secondly, that the City officers were to punish vagrants

and find work for the unemployed. No one was to be allowed to settle

his own affairs; fellow citizens and fellow parishioners were to

provide work and see it done, and were also to see that the youth of

the City were well trained.

Some efforts were made to provide against some of the difficulties

which were likely to hinder the execution of these commands. In order

to lessen the charges as much as possible the governors were to try

to persuade the masters of ships to engage their men from Bridewell;

they also adopted the very modern expedient of registering the names of

employers who were willing to give work to the poor who were sent to

them[218]. The old regulation was reaffirmed that the goods made by the

poor should be sent to the Companies and paid for by them so as far as

possible to prevent competition between the pauper-made goods and those

of the free citizens.

[218] Order 52. "Also a note shall be kept in Bridewell of places and

persons where and of whome worke may be had, that poore in parishes

sent thether to require worke may be the better releved."

The funds necessary for carrying out this organisation were to be

provided by a tax of two-fifteenths and by revising "the bookes of

taxations for the poore[219]." Besides "for helpe of the Hospitals and

Parishes in this charge all churchwardens and collectors for the poore

be strayghtly charged to execute the lawe against such as come not to

church, against al persons without exception, and specially against

such as while they ought to be at divine service, doo spend their time

and their money lewdly in haunting of plaies and other idle and wycked

pastimes and exercises."

[219] Orders 57 and 59.

Some steps were taken to put these orders in execution and twenty-five

occupations were practised in Bridewell. Amongst these were such trades

as the making of gloves, silk lace, pins, bays, felts and tennis balls,

so that some of the workers must have required considerable skill[220].

But on the whole the new rules suggest the comment "Easier said than

done," and so apparently the City authorities found. The Lord Mayor

complains of the difficulty of keeping order in the City in consequence

of the increase in the number of the poor owing to the erection of

many small houses in Kentish Street just across the boundary of the

City[221]. Even in 1594 begging was not entirely abolished. In that

year a new set of orders was drawn up with the object of repressing

vagrants, and it is provided that "no suche poor people as by reason

of age and other infirmitie have been allowed heretofore to aske and

take almes of well-disposed persons be henceforth so permitted to doe

any more but that the wardes whear they inhabit be forced to maintain

them in some convenient sort without begging or straying[222]."

[220] Order 61 in the printed edition of the Orders, a copy of which is

in the Guildhall Library. _Journals_, XX. 2 f. 502.

[221] _Remembrancia_, II. 74.

[222] _Remembrancia_, II. 76.

The measures of London on the whole indicate a good deal of activity on

the part of the City rulers, but until the close of the period there is

little sign of success. In London as elsewhere it is a period rather

of the growth of organisation than of successful administration. Still

the kind of system adopted throws a great deal of light on the social

ideals of the time. The daily visiting of the poor and the constant

watch that was to be kept over them show that little respect was paid

to individual freedom. On the other hand the orders of 1579 indicate

that the municipality endeavoured to carry out the provisions of the

Elizabethan Poor Laws for the employment of those who wanted work and

the relief of all who were in need of maintenance.

[Sidenote: 2. The organisation of Norwich.]

But the system adopted by Norwich is the most remarkable of the

municipal organisations of the time. As early as 1565 the Dean and

Chapter granted St Paul's Hospital to the city. This hospital was

also called the "Systers of Normans" and had been used partly as an

alms-house and partly as a house of entertainment for poor strangers.

It was one of the conditions of the grant that the provision for the

poor should be maintained, and after 1565 part of the building was

made into a House of Correction for the poor who would not work[223].

The establishment of the Bridewell by itself was of little good, and

we hear that in 1570 the poor of the city were in a state of great

disorder, and that the citizens contrived to effect an entirely new

state of things. So well did they succeed that the fame of their

system was known in all parts of the country, and the Archbishop of

Canterbury asked for information as to their proceedings. The citizens

consequently drew up an account of their doings and a "copi of the

wrighting lefte with may L. of Cant. grace the 19 April 1572" is still

preserved[224]. There the citizens state that in 1570 there were more

than two thousand beggars in the city. That in consequence of this the

beggars were demoralised. They were idle and would not work at all,

they became wasteful and threw away the food given to them, and they

also became drunkards and lived wicked lives, and so were a scandal

to the whole town. Moreover, although beggars were fed, they were

improperly clothed and housed, and consequently contracted disease and

were a centre of physical as well as moral pollution. Besides, there

were no proper means taken to clear the city of strange beggars, and

the number of poor in the city continually increased. We are told also

that the statute (of 1563) was not successful in inducing people to

contribute sufficient alms "upon which occasion was forced to followe

compulsion," and a collection was therefore made both to restrain the

loiterers and to relieve the poor.

[223] J. Kirkpatrick, _History of Religious Orders, &c. of Norwich_, p.

219. The accounts of the Bridewell begins in 1565. In 1598 the House of

Correction was removed to St Andrew's.

[224] The following account of the transactions at this time concerning

the poor of Norwich is derived from two large folio volumes. They are

in manuscript and are bound in leather. One is entitled "The Maiores

Booke for the Poore." Inside the cover is written "This booke made in

the feaste of St John the Baptiste 1576. In the xviii^{th} yere of the

rayne of our soveraigne Ladie Elizabeth by the grace of god quene of

Enland, France and Irelande defender of the faithe and dothe containe

certaine orders made for the poore of the Citie of Norwiche as allso

the names of everie of them, the saide poore regestrede in everie

warde vewede. Beginnynge the xx^{th} day of June 1571 according to a

statut made. And allso what searcementes ware made for the wekelye

contribution unto suche as had neede of whome the same sholde be

receivede, and lykewise to whome the same sholde be payede. With the

names of the Deaconnes and collectors, tharefore appoyntede, in everie

warde to receive and make distribution thereof, according to the

same orders, and accordinge to the commandemente of Mr Maior and the

Justices from tyme to tyme." This book is continued down to the year

1579. The second book contains the proceedings from 1571 to 1580. Both

volumes often contain the same entries in almost the same words; the

census is given only in the first volume, the orders are fully quoted

only in the second. The contents of the "wrighting" to the Archbishop

of Canterbury are given in different versions in both books. Besides

this there is a little book containing in rougher notes the list of

poor who are to depart the City, to receive money or to be placed

with the "select women." Lastly there is a loose paper containing the

accounts of the different collectors, with the aldermen of the wards.

The condition of affairs here depicted shows that the relief of the

poor was an urgent practical necessity, and that when the existing law

proved insufficient the citizens had no hesitation in imposing other

regulations of their own.

They began by making an elaborate census of all the poor in the city.

They give the name, age, occupation and dwelling of every man, woman

and child of the poorer classes. They stated whether they received

alms or not, and they sent a small number away from the city or to the

House of Correction. The greater number they classified as "able to

work," "not able to work," and "indifferent." Most of these poor people

were able to work and very few altogether incapable[225]. There were

nearly four hundred men, more than eight hundred women, and almost a

thousand children thus enumerated. The men belonged to every kind of

trade, there were many weavers, tailors, carpenters and glaziers. The

women more often than not spun white warp. With regard to the children

it is astonishing how often the little boys of seven and eight go to

school[226] and sometimes also the little girls. Children of six are

often reported to be "idle[227]." We shall have many other proofs of

the fact that some attention to popular education was not a creation

of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but that it was fairly

general during the days of good Queen Bess and the first half of the

seventeenth century. Work was however begun sometimes by very young

children, especially by the girls. For example, Gifferne Potterne a

"cordiner and in worke and Anne his wife that botcheth" had three

daughters, the eldest was nine years old and span, while the others

went to school: two of the youngest workers were two daughters of

Christobell Roll, "the eldiste of the age of seven yeres," these packed

wool. There are many other entries of the same kind that show that the

children began to work when they were nine or ten or younger still.

[225] Thus in Middle Wymer the classification was as follows:--

Indifferent Able to work Not able to work

Men 20 50 14

Women 32 89 13

Children 58 52 69

In other districts a few were ordered to depart and one or two were

described as disreputable.

[226] Thus Richard Smith has one sonne "that goe to scole at times."

See Appendix.

[227] Thus the following is a fairly typical entry concerning a man

belonging to the parish of St John's on the Hill in the ward of

"Bearestrete":

In Nichols | Roger Mason of the age of 56 yeres tailor that worketh, and

fleman's | Elizabeth, his wyfe, of the age of 38 yeres that spins white

house | warpe and one daughter of the age of 6 yeres that is idle; he

iii^d a weke| hath dwelt here 32 yeres.

indiff. |

See also Appendix where the part of the census relating to St Peter's

of Southgate is printed.

After the census had been made the Mayor, John Aldriche, issued a

proclamation forbidding begging altogether in the streets of Norwich

and ordering all strange beggars to depart. All the poor of the city

who could not work were to be relieved and the others were to be "set

on work." A new assessment was therefore made and the contributions

were in many cases considerably increased[228].

[228] The following are the first four names in the list for St John

Sepulchre:

p^d before pay now

Mr Haydon gent. vid. viiid.

Mr Smyth 0d. iiiid.

Richard Blofield iii vid.

Robert Spingold iid. iid. etc.

The poor who were to receive relief were then specified, and the

payments made to them though still small are greater than they had been

before. Other arrangements were also made: some were sent away from the

city; others were placed with the "select women"; masters were found

for the youths, and inquiries were made to see that servants were hired

for the whole year[229].

[229] Thus for example an order is made that "Elizabeth Browne of the

age of 18 years to be enquered for at John Croland, a duch man in St

Michael of Bearstreet, whether she be hired by the yere or elles to go

to service."

The Mayor was to be the Master of Bridewell, four aldermen were

appointed commissioners of the poor and all officers were to be

appointed by him. Regulations concerning Bridewell were made: a bailiff

was appointed and twelve incorrigible idlers were to be kept at work

there[230].

[230] See Appendix for the orders for the "balie of Bridewell."

But besides Bridewell in every ward "select" women were to be

appointed, and they were to receive women, maidens or children "whose

parents are not hable to pay for theyr learninge." These were to be so

taught "as labore and learninge shall be easier than idleness," and

the work was to be done "trewelie and workmanlye" under pain of sharp

correction[231]. The deacons were to see after the rest of the poor;

to set those fit to service to serve, to place others with the select

women, to relieve those that wanted help and to see that none begged or

were brought up in idleness[232].

[231] See Appendix for the orders for children and others.

[232] See Appendix for the orders for deacons.

Besides all this an orphanage was refounded at St Giles' where twelve

children were to be brought up until they could maintain themselves.

A little later certain aldermen and commoners were appointed who

presented an elaborate series of orders to the assembly. These were

adopted and a very thorough organisation was introduced.

Begging was entirely prohibited and every beggar was to receive six

stripes with the whip; the people who gave to beggars were also to pay

the fine ordered by statute and fourpence for every time besides.

These orders were put in force about May, 1571, and when they had been

adopted about a year the citizens enumerate the great advantages they

had derived from them. "Theis orders have been attried," they write,

and "put in practize in the seyd Citie and is founde to redowne to

theis commodities thereafter ensuing."

They proceed to enumerate the sums earned by nine hundred children at

sixpence a week; of sixty-four men "which dailie did begge and lived

ydlie and now beinge forced to worke" earned on an average a shilling

a week; and of one hundred and eighty women who earned twenty pence

each a week "one with another." Strange beggars were sent out of the

city, and the poor were better looked after and no longer had need of

collections for the healing of their miserable diseases. Altogether

the citizens reckoned they saved £2818. 1_s._ 4_d._ a year in money.

Besides this the most disorderly kinds of people no longer resorted

to the city "and the magistrates trobles for them be marvellouselye

easied."

This organisation of 1570 was essentially a municipal organisation, but

we can see that the statutes considerably influenced the town rulers

of the time. They had tried the semi-voluntary system of collection

authorised by the statute of 1563, and had found that funds could not

be collected in this manner. They therefore employed more compulsion

without any hesitation. They punished "according to the statute" people

who gave to beggars, and they added a special fine of their own. The

statutes themselves made the organisation for the collection of funds

municipal as well as parochial and it is interesting to see this double

system in working order. The deacons collected the rates of their

particular parishes and paid the pensions granted to the poor. But it

was the Mayor or his deputies who saw that everyone was assessed at

the proper amount. The payments of a parish did not necessarily meet

the expenses; the rich parishes paid for the poorer ones. The deacons

accounted to the aldermen responsible for the ward; and some paid to

them their surplus while others received the sums necessary to make up

the deficiency[233].

[233] A paper among the Norwich records contains the sums paid to the

aldermen and the amount given by them to the deacons of the different

parishes. Other accounts in the "Maiores booke" show the sums given by

the deacons and by the commissioners for the medical treatment of the

poor. Thus in 1571-2 a deacon paid iiii_d._ to "Glavin's wife to heal

Tom Parker's leg," while Mr Thomas Beament paid 6/8_d._ to "Mother

Colls for healinge a broken legg of Margarete Paine, a pore wydow in

the Normans."

Norwich seems to have been the first English town to prohibit begging

altogether; the system of licensed beggars was still employed in most

parts of the country.

The detailed accounts for the poor of Norwich were preserved down to

1580 and show that the organisation was in full working order for

ten years. One of the compilations relating to this organisation was

begun in 1576 and the whole tone of this book shows that the citizens

of Norwich were very proud of their doings in matters concerning the

poor[234]. It is perhaps the only place where the purely municipal

organisation for the poor was successful for any length of time. There

were difficulties again in the seventeenth century but as long as the

first enthusiasm continued the system seems to have worked well.

[234] _The Maiores Booke for the Poore._ See note 1, p. 102.

The work was done thoroughly and placed on a sound basis. The House

of Correction and the select women were maintained by the side of a

sufficient collection for the relief and training of the poor, and,

probably for these reasons, the system continued to be successful as

long as the administrators continued to give it the necessary amount of

supervision.

The citizens of Norwich seem to have partially overcome one of the

principal difficulties of a purely municipal organisation by very

rigorous settlement regulations, quite as severe as any that were ever

enforced after the statute of 1662. For instance a Jane Thornton is to

depart because she "in summer live in the cuntrie but in wint^r charge

the citie," and "Richard Birch and his familie" were to go to Thorpe

though he was not at this time (1570) in receipt of alms. There are

many cases of the same kind and these continue throughout this period

of ten years and occur again in the seventeenth century.

This kind of action with regard to new settlers was not confined to

Norwich but probably extended to all parts of the country where there

was much systematic relief of the poor.

[Sidenote: 3. The action of other towns.]

We will now consider some of the various plans for the relief and

organisation of the poor adopted in other towns.

We will first see how the municipal authorities dealt with settlement;

we will then investigate various methods of dealing with the

unemployed; and lastly we will examine the different ways in which

funds were collected.

[Sidenote: 3. (1) With regard to the settlement of new comers.]

With regard to questions concerning the expulsion of new comers the

statute of Charles II. (13 and 14 Car. II. c. 12) does not appear to

initiate a new custom. Municipal control in this matter begins before

1569. Whenever the town made a vigorous attempt to maintain its own

poor, many efforts were made to prevent new comers from settling within

its borders. Sometimes the landlords were forbidden to subdivide

tenements or build more houses of the poorer sort; sometimes the

citizens were fined for entertaining poor inmates, and sometimes the

inmates themselves were ordered to depart.

Thus in London the landlords first are restrained. In a resolution of

the Common Council of 5 Edw. VI. it is stated that "capytell messuages

and houses" had been turned into alleys and the class of vagabonds was

greatly increased. It is therefore ordered that the inhabitants of

these alleys should pay their rent to the House of the Poor in West

Smithfield and not to their landlords[235].

[235] _Journals_, Vol. XVI. f. 127.

In Aug. 1557 it is not only the landlords but the occupiers who are to

blame, and they are ordered to put out of their houses "vagaboundes,"

"masterles men" and "evill disposed persons," and in future not to

receive any one of the sort[236].

[236] _Ib._ Vol. XVII. f. 42 _b_

The municipal rulers of Ipswich also, in 1557, the year in which a

compulsory Poor Rate was enforced, appointed "searchers for newcommers

into the Towne[237]," and in 1578 provided that searches shall be made

forthwith "for new commers and servants, retained for less than one

yere," and that the constables are to warn new comers to depart the

town[238].

[237] Nathaniel Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, p. 249.

[238] _Ib._ p. 319.

In Cambridge in 1556 an inquiry had been made concerning new comers

but apparently the town rulers were not very vigilant, for in 1584 the

Privy Council ordered them to remove as many small tenements as might

be consistent with the public convenience[239].

[239] C. H. Cooper, _Annals of Cambridge_, Vol. II. p. 398. See note p.

93.

In St Albans as at Norwich we find that the regulations were very

complete. In 1586 monthly searches were instituted: and the searchers

were commanded "in the limits of their several Wards" to "make search

for such new comers to the town as being poor may be likely to be

chargeable to the same, and if they shall find any such within either

of their several Divisions to give notice thereof to Mr Mayor, that

order may be taken for their sending away[240]." We hear of orders

made for the expulsion of particular poor people because they were

likely to be in need of relief, and in some cases we can see that this

practice caused great hardship to individuals. Thus John Tompson, a

joiner, had taken a poor woman into his house and as she was likely to

become chargeable she was ordered to quit the borough[241]. Moreover

we have the later plan of finding sureties already in operation.

John Palmer was admitted a freeman, a Thomas Browne undertaking that

Palmer's children should not become chargeable to the Borough[242].

[240] A. E. Gibbs, _The Corporation Records of St Albans_, Oct. 1st,

1596, p. 14.

[241] _Ib._ Ap. 15th, 1588, p. 24. Orders for sending poor people away

in order that they might not become chargeable were made on many other

occasions. _Ib._ pp. 12, 26 and 45.

[242] _Ib._ Feb. 5th, 1587/8, p. 24. See also p. 37, Oct. 19th,

1590. Gabriel Hill, a new comer, was brought before the Mayor to give

sureties that he and his wife and children should not become chargeable

to the borough. Sept. 1st, 1593. Nich. Cobell had to give sureties,

bring a testimonial from his former parish, pay 4_d._ quarterly towards

the parson's stipend and a certain sum weekly to the poor.

We thus see that the statute of Charles II. did not impose hardships

on the poor never before endured. It is a curious instance of the

adoption by statute of a custom that had long existed. The custom had

been enforced without statutory authority while the town government

continued to possess semi-independent powers, but it could not be

enforced without statutory authority in later times. The statute

therefore stereotyped a custom that had long been in existence in the

towns and would otherwise have become obsolete.

This practice of preventing settlement has a far closer connection with

the social order of the reign of Elizabeth than with that of Charles

II. It was a great hardship to the poor, but it was a hardship to which

they had long been partially accustomed and which fitted in with the

economic policy of the towns.

In most towns the right of exercising skilled trades and of opening

shops was denied to any but freemen so that many difficulties were

already imposed on the settlement of new comers. The organised relief

of the poor increased these difficulties, it is true, but it did not

altogether create them.

But it is more interesting to examine the experiments of the time with

regard to the unemployed.

[Sidenote: 3. (2) The action of towns with regard to the unemployed.]

In some districts a stock of materials was purchased either by private

charity or by municipal funds. Portions of these materials were given

to the poor that they might manufacture them. The finished article

was then returned and afterwards sold, while the worker was paid

according to the value of his labour. Sometimes a master was employed

to teach the trade. Thus a Mr Watts left certain lands to the Mayor and

Corporation of Rochester partly for this purpose. An old parchment roll

contains the rules of the charity. The Mayor was to choose one honest

citizen or several as "Providours of the Poore." The "Providours" were

directed to buy flax and wool "to set the poor to work." This was to be

worked into yarn and the spinners were to be paid for their labour. The

yarn was to be sold in the open market, if possible, at a profit[243].

The same kind of plan was probably in operation at Canterbury and

Colchester. Archbishop Grindal bequeathed a hundred pounds to

Canterbury[244] for the purpose of providing the needy inhabitants

with work, and Lady Judde left a like sum to Colchester "as a stock

to buy and provide from time to time Wool, Yarn, Flax and such other

merchandize and things as the season should require; for the setting on

work such poor persons, inhabiting within the said Town, and Liberties

of the same, as should be able to work and labour[245]."

[243] _Hist. Man. Com. Rep._ IX. App. 1, p. 286. The will was made

in 1579, and six years later an agreement was made with the widow

under which the Mayor agreed to purchase hemp as directed. _Hist. of

Rochester_ (S. Denne), p. 220.

[244] W. Somner, _Antiquities of Canterbury_, p. 273.

[245] P. Morant, _Essex_, Vol. I. p. 164.

In St Albans we know more of the details of the experiment and find

that there training was provided as well as employment and the funds

were furnished by the town. In 1588 the town rulers engaged a Dutchman

named Anthony Moner to teach the poor of the town to spin worsted and

other yarns[246]. Eight pounds were taken from the town chest in order

to pay for the looms, combs and wheels which were to be used. Inquiries

were made throughout the town for poor children who could be spared

to learn the new trade; they were to be taught in six weeks and then

paid for their labour[247]. About the same time terms were arranged for

four men to be taught by the Dutchman. When taught they were to be paid

through "the Company[248]," so that apparently the custom of St Albans

was like that of London; the work of the poor was sold through the

Company representing the citizen workers of the same occupation. The

corporation paid £10 for the original stock of wool and every two tods

were to be paid for when the next were fetched[249]. The undertaking is

therefore partly an example of the employment of the poor by municipal

capital and partly an early instance of technical education provided by

town rulers.

[246] A. Gibbs, _Corporation Records of S. Albans_, p. 28, June

10th, 1588. The spinning of fine worsted and certain light yarns was

introduced into England about this time, and was taught mainly by the

foreign refugees from France or Holland.

[247] _Corporation Records of S. Albans_, Sept. 2nd, 1588. The next

year it was agreed that the children should be paid for their labour

when they had been taught six weeks. _Ib._ Jan. 20th, 1588/9.

[248] _Ib._ Feb. 17th, 1588/9.

[249] _Ib._ Sept. 29th, 1588.

Something of the same kind was probably done at York. In 1578, £400

was raised for "settyng the poor of this citie on worke," half of

which was contributed by the city and half from the money of Sir

William Bowes. In the will of Thomas Brafferton money was also left

for this purpose and more detailed directions were given as to its

use. A stock of wool, flax or hemp was to be bought and "delivered

within the parishe of Thornabie to be by them wrought and made into

cloth and the poore people for the working thereof to be paid after

such rate as nowe or hereafter shallbe used for such lyke work within

the said parishe[250]." In 1591 proposals were made for the same kind

of undertaking at Lincoln, and a technical school was established

at the expense of the corporation[251]. At Leicester also the town

contributed money on several occasions to set the poor people to

work[252]. In 1597 the Court of Quarter Sessions in Devonshire make an

order that means for setting the poor to work should be provided by the

local justices as if this were quite a usual practice[253]. There is

no reason to suppose that the instances above quoted are exceptional.

There is however more evidence on the subject during the next period.

[250] "City of York in the Sixteenth Century," Miss Maud Sellars. _The

English Historical Review_, April 1894, pp. 288, 289.

[251] _Lincoln Hist. Man. Com. Report_, XIV. App. viii.

p. 74. On July 31, 1591, "A committee appointed to confer with Mr Grene

of Boston who has offered to set 400 poor people of Lincoln on work for

five years at wool, if the city will find him a convenient house and

lend him 300_l._ freely for the five years."

p. 17. Among the manuscripts described is a "fragment consisting of

eight small quarto leaves of a book of orders made in 1591 and 1592

respecting a knitting school established by the city." This contains

the following information:

8th Oct. 1591. Cheeseman undertakes under certain conditions to teach

a competent number of women and men how to knit and "to hide nothing

from them that belongeth to the knowledge of the said science." Four

aldermen were appointed overseers.

28 July, 1592. Forty stone of wool to be provided.

4 Aug. 1592. Articles of agreement made at the Knitters House in St

Saviourgate between John Cheeseman and Francis Newby.

In this agreement Francis Newby and his wife Jane undertook to attend

regularly at Cheeseman's house to learn his trade of knitting,

spinning, dressing of wool and keeping his mill. Newby and his wife

were to have the oversight and teaching of thirty scholars. They were

to be paid 40_s._, twopence for every pair of stockings knitted by a

scholar and the full price of their own work. They were also to have

such profit as might arise from "amending and footing all stockings"

brought unto them.

On the same day it was agreed by the Corporation that the Knitter

should be paid 16_s._ 8_d._ for ten wheels which he had provided and

the overseers arranged to visit the school in turn.

This Lincoln school very closely resembles the experiment tried at St

Albans. It shows the corporation attempting to provide employment and

technical education at the same time for the children of the town.

[252] For Leicester see _Growth of English History and Commerce_, W.

Cunningham, Vol. II., p. 60 note.

[253] Alexander H. A. Hamilton, _Quarter Sessions from Queen Elizabeth

to Queen Anne_, p. 16. At Windsor also the following resolution was

adopted: "All the brethren of the hall and all other inhabitants shall

be assessed according to their ability by the subsidie after the rate

of 12_d._ in the pound towards levying of a stock to set the poore on

work." Mr Gwyn and Mr Harris were appointed Governors of the poore for

the first year. _Annals of Windsor._ I. 637. Tighe and Davis quoting

Ash. Mans. No. 1126.

But perhaps more often a workhouse or hospital was erected. At Reading

one was built on the site of the house of the Grey Friars. This

hospital contained twenty-one children and fourteen old persons. The

funds were provided by the poor's box, by private contributions, by

collections in the three parishes, and by the work of the poor. The

accounts are in existence from 1578 to 1648, and the value of the work

of the poor was very considerable. For the fourth quarter of the year

1578 it amounted to £12. 8_s._ 8_d._[254], and this at a time when the

ordinary sum paid for the maintenance of an adult poor person was about

a shilling a week. There were also Poor Houses at Colchester and at

King's Lynn[255].

[254] Coates' _Reading_, pp. 307-8.

[255] Morant's _Essex_, p. 182. For King's Lynn see Chapter XI.

But the most general arrangement made for the unemployed poor and

for vagrants was the erection of a House of Correction. The House of

Correction before the Civil War was not in all cases nearly so much

like a gaol as it afterwards became. Often it was also a hospital for

the old, and an industrial school for the young. Christ's Hospital at

Ipswich is a good example of this kind of institution. This hospital

was founded in 1569 and was controlled by the town. Governors were

elected yearly who were to meet every week, and a paid official called

a guider was appointed to look after the poor there. In 1594 and

in 1597 such guiders were elected and the orders drawn up on these

occasions tell us the nature of their duties. In 1597 for every person

sent to the hospital who was to be forced to work and "corrected" the

guider was to receive fourpence, after that he had nothing for their

keep but their work. But for others who were sent to Christ's Hospital

and were not to be "corrected," twelve pence a week was paid, and the

value of their work also. In the orders of 1594 the guider is allowed

eightpence a week for those unable to work, and special provisions were

made about the clothing of the children[256]. It is thus quite evident

that at Ipswich the hospital was used, not only for vagrants, but also

for children and for the impotent; not only for people who deserved

punishment, but also for people who were simply in need of relief.

[256] Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, 25 Oct., 1594, and 8 Dec., 1597.

In the well-known example of the House of Correction at Bury the scale

of diet and daily routine are specified. There were two principal

meals, dinner and supper, and on days when meat was eaten everyone

was to have eight ounces of rye bread, a pint of porridge, a quarter

of a pound of meat and a pint of beer; on the fast days instead of

meat one-third of a pound of cheese or one or two herrings were

provided. Those that behaved well were allowed a little bread and beer

in addition, and those that would not work were limited to bread and

beer only. On the whole the diet compares favourably with that of a

modern workhouse. All were to rise at four in the summer and five in

the winter, and had to work until seven, with intervals for morning and

evening prayer. The amount of punishment was minutely regulated; the

"sturdy rogues" were to receive twelve stripes, while those guilty a

second time of "unchaste or unchristian speeches or behaviour" received

three[257].

[257] Regulations of a House of Correction at Bury, 1589. Printed,

Eden, _The State of the Poor_, Vol. III., Appendix vii.

Many Houses of Correction were built in the later days of Queen

Elizabeth. The "moste parte" of the hospital of Reading was to be

converted into a House of Correction in 1590 "aswell for the settinge

of the poore people to worke, being able to worke for theire reliefes

and for the settinge of idle persons to worke therein as also for

the punishinge and correctinge of idle and vagrant persons[258]." At

York also in 1584, arrangements were made at St Anthony's "for the

punnyshment of such rooges as will not worke[259]."

[258] _Records of the Borough of Reading_, Vol. I. p. 403.

[259] "The City of York in the Sixteenth Century," _The English

Historical Review_, April 1894, p. 288.

Bristol, Winchester, Gloucester and Exeter also founded institutions

of the kind, but at Exeter though one was founded there was some

difficulty connected with it, and we are told that the citizens

"afterwards repented[260]."

[260] Freeman's _Exeter_, p. 177. Seyer's _Bristol_, Vol. II. p. 248.

"This year 1577 was a collection for the erecting of a Bridewell at the

old house called Mombridge, where much cost in building and repairing

was done and one called Meg Lowrey was the first ill person there

corrected." Winchester _Cal. of State Papers_, April 24th and April

29th, 1582. Gloucester Rudder's _Gloucestershire_, p. 190.

Thus before 1597 many Houses of Correction were in existence, and,

though according to several authorities they were allowed to decay for

a time, in the next reign they became general.

But these were not the only methods by which the poor were set to work.

Pressure was put on employers both by public opinion and by official

authority. The Gloucestershire justices report concerning a disturbance

in 1586 and say the clothiers were not in fault, for "the clothiers

here doe yet contynue to keepe their poore in worke as in former tymes

they have donne althoughe it hath been to their greate losses; and soe

they are contented to doe as longe as they maie occupie their trade

without undooing of themselfs[261]." The fact that this report was

made shows that blame was attached to the employer who turned off his

workmen in bad times; to some extent the master and not the man was

expected to take the risk of the fluctuations of the markets. In 1591

the Town Council of Ipswich went further and ordered the clothiers "to

sett the poore on work" within the town, at the same time providing

that, if any refuse the work or misuse their material, they were to be

punished by the bailiffs[262].

[261] _Dom. State Papers, Queen Eliz._, Vol. 189, 50. The report goes

on to say that the clothiers will have to give up their trade, because

since they might only sell to English merchants they could not get

a good price. They say they were working at a loss of 6_s._ 8_d._ a

cloth. See p. 86 _supra_ for the Earl of Leicester's letter to the same

effect.

[262] Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, 1st April, 1591.

Thus the provision of work for the unemployed was made in many

different ways. Sometimes materials, teachers and implements were

paid for by municipal capital, often workhouses were established,

occasionally pressure was put on employers, and the most usual plan

of all was to establish a House of Correction, which was used both to

punish vagrants and to relieve the poor. But these attempts to provide

work, though numerous, were not universal and there is some reason to

believe that before 1597 many of these efforts had failed and needed to

be revived in the succeeding years.

[Sidenote: 3. (3) Methods of raising funds.]

The expenses of the organisation for the benefit of the poor were

largely a new charge on the public purse, and difficulty was frequently

experienced in finding the necessary money. Before 1572 there was no

statutory right to make rates for this object, but we have seen that

the borough authorities did enforce compulsory payments and levied

local rates for this and other purposes. The old methods were continued

and new ones tried during the period from 1569 to 1597. Sometimes the

basis employed was that used for national taxation. The chief direct

national taxes of the time were fifteenths and subsidies. A fifteenth

was nominally a tax on moveables, but after 1334 the total amount never

altered, and each town had to pay an invariable sum[263] which was

apportioned from time to time among the local inhabitants; lists would

thus be prepared of how much everyone had to pay, and these furnished

a convenient basis of local taxation. Probably the earliest compulsory

payment for the poor was the fifteenth levied in 1547 in London, and in

1579 two more fifteenths were imposed there in order to carry out the

organisation of that year[264]. At other times fractions of a subsidy

were exacted for local objects. In 1585 in order to meet "the charge of

the poore" at Ipswich the fourth part of a subsidy was levied "uppon

suche as are in the subsidy," while the rest were to be assessed by

a Committee "according to their best discretion[265]." At Bury also

the subsidy book was utilised for this purpose in 1589 when the House

of Correction was founded. Every person whose land was rated "in the

subsedy booke" at twenty shillings was to pay sixpence in the pound,

and every person "being sett in the subsedye book at 3 _li._ goods to

paie IIII^d[266]."

[263] Thus a fifteenth at Reading raised "xxiiii_li._ xiii_d._ ob. ut

patet per recordum in Scaccario domini Regis inde factum et per veterem

compotum per collectores inde similiter factum." _Records of Reading_,

I. 87, 1489.

[264] See p. 30. See Cannan, _The History of Local Rates_, p. 20.

[265] Bacon, _Annals of Ipswich_, 8th Oct. 1585, p. 344.

[266] Regulations of a House of Correction at Bury, Suffolk. Eden, Vol.

III. Appendix vii.

Another method of collecting money for the poor was by means of local

dues. At Ipswich tolls were exacted from ships entering the harbour,

and payments were also made by all who were admitted freemen, by all

who had "a writing acknowledged," and by all who had a witness examined

before the bailiffs in writing[267]. Sometimes fines and payments by

individuals for particular privileges were devoted to this purpose. At

Ipswich those who opened shops on Sunday paid their fines to Christ's

Hospital. A parson who had incurred a penalty by suing for too much

tithe was ordered to deliver to the hospital "60 combes of tanne[268],"

and a man of St Albans obtained a license to keep an alehouse before

anyone else on condition that he paid twopence weekly towards the

support of a certain orphan[269]. Akin to this method of raising money

was the practice of persuading a man to take a town apprentice in

return for the freedom of the town or some other privilege[270].

[267] Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, 19 Sept. 1571, p. 292, and 1575, p.

307.

[268] _Ib._ 16 July, 1571. A burgess who neglected to attend the Great

Court was fined fourpence "to the use of the poore." _Ib._ 5th Mar.

1568, p. 279.

[269] A. Gibbs, _Corporation Records of St Albans_, p. 46.

[270] At St Albans in 1587 two men were reported for carrying on their

trade as fullers without being freemen. It was resolved that one of

them should have his freedom if he would bring up one of the children

of a widow Floyd until it could get its own living. _Corporation

Records_, p. 27. At Ipswich Peter Ray, a tailor, was made a burgess

provided he took an apprentice from the hospital. Nathaniel Bacon's

_Annals of Ipswich_, 22nd July, 1575, p. 306. In Ipswich also a

"fforainer" having a town child as his apprentice was allowed to

trade with his linen cloth in the town on market-day so long as the

apprentice remained with him. _Ib._ 24th April, 1599, p. 398.

Soon after the accession of Elizabeth new methods began to be adopted,

and a special scale of payments was fixed where the poor were

concerned. In 1570 at Norwich the citizens neglected to give according

to their ability and so compulsion had to follow. The basis of the

first assessment was the old voluntary collection. If a new-comer

arrived after 1576 he was taken to the mayor or his deputy and assessed

by him at a suitable sum[271]. In London also we have seen that the

first assessment under the statute of 1572 was based on the payments

formerly made, but the amounts were to be increased when there was

any cause. In Ipswich also by 1579 there was apparently a special

assessment for the poor, for it was then ordered that "all the persons

in this Towne rated to pay to the poore, shall presently pay soe

much mony as by computation his rate shall amount unto for one monthe

and neverthelesse continue the paym^{ts} of their rates as they are

rated[272]." It seems that in Ipswich the practice of levying poor

rates according to the value of the house was already adopted.

[271] Orders given to the "Overseers of everie parish" in 1576, 1577,

1578, entered in the "Maiores Booke for the Poore."

[272] Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, 4 Dec., 1579.

Sometimes a large sum of money was raised at one time to form what was

called a "stock." This fund was let out at interest to various people

or invested in land and the sums arising from this interest or rent

were used though the capital remained untouched. During the reign of

Elizabeth the various public bodies lent out a good deal of the money

in their hands in this manner. In 1584 there was an inquiry into the

management of funds so raised at Winchester and the bishop sent a

declaration on the subject to the Council. Some of the money had been

used for the poor in the parishes and some for the House of Correction.

A hundred and twenty pounds had been given for the use of the poor

in the parish of Twiford; this had been lent at the rate of ten per

cent. and the £12 so obtained had been or was about to be distributed

to the poor[273]. The large sum of £1009 had been spent on the House

of Correction and no proper account was made. In future, however, the

justices were to levy a rate on the parish so that no parish paid more

than fourpence a week and so that the average amounted to twopence.

[273] The gentlemen responsible for the sums belonging to the other

parishes were not present, but it was resolved that these funds

also should be lent on good security and the interest only used for

distribution "so that the stocke may still remayne to the like reliefe

of the poore hereafter." _Dom. S. P. Qu. Eliz._ Vol. 173, No. 62.

Thus we see that during this period all kinds of plans were tried.

There was no attempt to enforce any theory that the required sum ought

to be levied according to the value of lands occupied or according to

the wealth of the payer. The authorities were sorely puzzled how to

raise the money and adopted any plan that was likely to be successful.

[Sidenote: 4. The events of the years of scarcity 1594-1597.]

We will now consider the events of the years of scarcity from 1594 to

1597, both so far as they concern the central Government and so far as

they concern local officials. They are interesting both because of what

the authorities did during these years and because of what they failed

to do. The year from Sept. 1572 to Sept. 1573 was the last in which

the average price of wheat was under 20/- a quarter. From 1594 onwards

there was a succession of bad harvests owing to the excessive amount

of rain. Wheat quadrupled in price, and barley and rye, which were the

grains ordinarily used for the bread of the poor, rose nearly in the

same proportion[274].

[274] The prices given in the _History of Agriculture and Prices_ are

as follows:

Wheat. Barley. Rye.

Average price per quarter 23_s._ 8¼_d._ 12_s._ 10½_d._ 17_s._ 2½_d._ Prices are

of 10 years 1583-1592 not given

Sept. to Sept. 1594-5 37_s._ 7½_d._ 16_s._ 32_s._ in 1590

" " 1595-6 40_s._ 9½_d._ 21_s._ 4_d._ 34_s._ 2½_d._ and 1591

" " 1596-7 56_s._ 6¼_d._ 52_s._ 9½_d._

" " 1597-8 52_s._ 4½_d._ 25_s._ 5¼_d._ 36_s._

In July 1597 the price reached 96_s._ a quarter at Newcastle. Hatfield

MSS. VII. p. 296.

In 1594, the Privy Council ordered the reissue of the orders of 1587,

and the justices were directed to meet together that they might devise

means of putting them in execution[275]. In 1595 further efforts were

made to enforce these instructions of the Government. The justices

dwelling near London were called to the Star Chamber, and an oration

was delivered to them by the Lord Keeper, which had been committed to

him by the Queen herself without any direction from the Council[276].

He stated that the old custom of making an oration at the beginning

of term had been discontinued heretofore, "but now, considering the

presente scarsitye her Ma^{tie} of her own speciall care and regarde

to her louinge subiectes hathe gyven in charge to us[277], to delyuer

in this place her owne speciall direction for the redresse hereof."

The justices were to overlook "the certificates in former times made

accordinge to some former orders in that case provided" and were

to punish the offences of "corne maisters and mongers" with great

severity. They were to go to the markets and persuade the farmers to

bring their corn, and if need be "to use there authoritie therein."

They themselves, assisted by all those of the better sort, were "to

make a somme of monie" and therewith to buy corn to be sold in every

market without any profit. Moreover the justices were to repair to

their country homes and maintain a hospitable house. The Lord Keeper

also complained that there were too many justices, and Her Majesty

"therefore like a good huswyfe looking unto all her houshold stuffe"

had herself marked the names of some who were no longer to continue in

the commission. Those that remained were to look to the execution of

the statute of retainers, to the keeping of "waches for the punishing

of rouges and idle persons," and "were to exercise Justice with a

Herculean courage[278]." At the same time the Council sent orders to

some particular justices. In 1595 they apparently sent to the justices

of Devonshire and advocated selling corn underprice to the poor: the

justices reply there was no need for such a step for the markets are

well furnished and the price falling[279]. But as a bad harvest again

followed the distress became worse. In 1597 the Lord-Lieutenant also

wrote to the Devonshire magistrates commending the relief of the poor

to their especial care, and this time the Court of Quarter Sessions

immediately issue orders for their relief. The Constables were to

"take a view" of all the poor and of all the wealthy people in the

district and to report the result to the justices. One, two, three

or more people were to have one or two meals given them every day by

each householder. If the householder failed the justices might make

an order for a payment, not exceeding eighteenpence a week "for every

pole." In addition a special rate was to be imposed for setting the

poor to work[280]. Moreover the Lord Chief Justice admonished the

justices of Wiltshire in 1597 probably under instructions from the

Council. The justices are ordered to see that the farmers "allowe one

bushell in every quarter to be solde by the pecke and halffe-pecke to

the poore at eightepence the bushell under the ordinarie price of the

market[281]"; they are also to take care that the markets are well

supplied with corn.

[275] Egerton MSS. 2644. Copy of a set of orders sent by Henry Mildmay

to the justices of a division of Essex. It is signed by Burghley and

other Lords of the Privy Council, and states that the orders issued in

Jan. of the 29th year of the Queen's reign were now renewed and that

these justices were to meet and put them in execution.

[276] "Par sa devise demesne." _Les Reportes del Cases in Camera

Stellata_, 1593-1609, John Hawarde, edited by W. P. Baildon, F.S.A., p.

19. Hawarde was a barrister of the Middle Temple: he wrote his volumes

from rough notes taken in Court, but does not seem to have verified his

references. _Ib._ Introd. p. vii.

[277] The Lord Treasurer and Lord Keeper.

[278] _Les Reportes_ (_l.c._) p. 21. June 3rd, 1595. On July 1st,

1596, the justices were again addressed and ordered to return home "in

regarde of eminent daungers." _Ib._ p. 56.

[279] A. Hamilton, _Quarter Sessions from Queen Elizabeth to Queen

Anne_, p. 17.

[280] Hamilton, _Quarter Sessions_, p. 16.

[281] Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. No. 32092, f. 145. See Appendix.

The Earl of Bath received letters concerning the high prices of corn at

Barnstaple and "he with other justices came to town, viewed the market

and set the price upon corn there, to wit wheat 9_s._, rye 6_s._,

barley 5_s._, oats 2_s._, threatening the seller with duress if he

sold for above that price[282]." Very little grain was to be had even

at high prices, and a Mr Stanbury was deputed to go to London in order

that he might help to purchase corn for the town. "God speed him well,"

writes Wyot, "that he may procure some corn for the inhabitants of this

town in this time of scarcity, that there is but little cometh to the

market and such snatching and catching for that little and such a cry

that the like was never heard." Barnstaple was not, however, at the end

of its troubles[283]; in 1597 wheat was sold at 15_s._ and 20_s._ the

bushel, and many of the inhabitants must have starved.

[282] In May 1596 the price of wheat at Barnstaple was 11_s._, rye and

barley 8_s._, oats 2_s._ 4_d._ "whereupon upon letters sent to the

Earl of Bath" presumably from the Council, he set the prices mentioned

in the text. _Barnstaple Records North Devon Herald_, June 3rd, 1880,

quoting from Wyot's Diary. Wyot's Diary is described as a small

quarto book of 52 leaves purporting to contain extracts from an older

manuscript. It was copied by William Palmer in the seventeenth century,

from the diary of Philip Wyot, who was Town Clerk between 1586 to 1608.

_Ib._ April 22nd, 1880.

[283] 1596. "Not a dry day in November." 1597. "April 8th wheat sold

for 18_s._ a bushel, barley 13_s._, rye 14_s._, oats 4_s._ Now in

July by reason of continual rain wheat sold last Friday for 20_s._ a

bushel." The beginning of harvest brought relief and wheat fell to

3_s._ 4_d._, rye 2_s._ 7_d._, and barley 2_s._ 4_d._ This fall to

one-sixth of the former values makes us realise how violent were the

fluctuations in price. A like sudden alteration took place at Bristol

in 1587. On Aug. 12th, 1587, wheat was sold at 5_s._ a bushel, but

on the 19th of the same month it fell to 22_d._ Seyer's _Memoirs of

Bristol_, Vol. II. p. 253.

The Archbishops of York and Canterbury issued letters to the bishops of

their provinces with directions designed to mitigate the sufferings of

the poor. The usual collections for their relief were to be carefully

made and were to be increased. The wealthy were "to use a greater

moderation than heretofore in their diet" and were not to lessen the

number of their households. Not only was everyone to fast on Fridays,

but they were to do without their suppers on Wednesdays also, "to the

intent that that which is by forbearance of that meal and at other

meals, by abstinency from all superfluous fare, fruitfully spared, may

presently, especially by the wealthier sort, be charitably converted

to the relief and comfort of the poor and needy." The ministers and

churchwardens were to send monthly certificates of the observance of

these orders with the names of any who were negligent[284]. We shall

see that in Wakefield this Wednesday fast was observed and it is by no

means improbable that these commands were actually enforced in other

places.

[284] _The Life of John Whitgift_, John Strype. Appendix, Bk. IV.

No. XXX. 27th Dec. 1596. The Minister was to stir up the people "to

abstinence, fasting and true humiliation; to forbear all excess; to

relieve the poor and needy by good house-keeping, by setting them

on work and by other deeds of alms and brotherly compassion. And

considering the most princely and gracious care her Majesty hath for

their relief, and that all good means should be used for the succour

and help of them in these times of dearth, the people must be taught

to endure this scarcity with patience; and especially to beware, how

they give ear to any persuasions or practices of discontented and idle

brains, to move them to repine or swerve from the humble duties of good

subjects." The double purpose of helping the poor and maintaining order

may be observed in this letter of the archbishop as well as in the

direct orders of the Privy Council.

The local authorities also endeavoured to remedy the evil. The

proceedings of the Bristol Corporation illustrate the sudden rise in

price and the great need there was for measures of relief. In 1594 the

Mayor, Francis Knight, laid out money "to provide corn for the common

sort of people," and by his means corn was brought from Danzig to

Bristol. One of the aldermen also, a Mr Thomas Aldworth, spent £1200

in corn and brought a certain quantity into the market every day. Next

year the scarcity continued, and in November a Mr Whitson was asked to

buy corn for the Corporation. He did so and arranged that 3000 quarters

of rye should arrive in May, 1596, and cost 28_s._ the quarter. But

the Mayor alleged the corn was too dear and the Corporation would pay

but half of Mr Whitson's charges to London and would only agree to buy

half the rye. "But so it fell out, that when the said rye was arrived

in Bristol, it was well worth 44_s._ a quarter and more. And then the

said Mayor and Aldermen intreated to have the whole bargain and would

pay Mr Whitson 50_li._ for his charges and running the adventure of the

bargain, whereupon after some persuasion he (being of a good nature)

consented." The corn was badly needed and within twenty days was sold

at 6_s._ a bushel, though even that sum was under the market price. The

Corporation gained £774 on the bargain and many pecks and half-pecks

were given to the poor.

Still this corn lasted but twenty days, and during 1596 and 1597 corn

was sold in Bristol at 7_s._, 8_s._, 12_s._, 16_s._, and according to

one authority even 20_s._ a bushel. Under these circumstances the poor

could not live, and it was decided by Mayor and Council that every

alderman or any burgess, that had any property, should every day give

one meal of meat to the poor people who were out of work. Some were

to feed eight persons, and some only two, according to their ability.

"Whereby," says the chronicler, "the poor of our city were all relieved

and kept from starving or rising." The justices seem to have been

vigilant in other directions also; they would allow no grain to be

exported and ordered that very little malt should be made[285].

[285] Seyer's _Memoirs of Bristol_, Vol. II., pp. 254 and 255, quoting

from Adams and Ricart's _Chronicle_.

In London the difficulty was great: in 1594 Lord Howard sent up three

ships laden with corn that the inhabitants might have bread, and in

1596 twenty ships carrying grain arrived from the Low Countries[286].

[286] _Remembrancia_, II. 31. Apparently other ships were sent in 1595.

_Ib._ II. 95; II. 59.

This grain may have been used for the whole country. An old chronicler

of Shrewsbury relates that in 1596 "there was provision made by the

bailiffs and aldermen of Shrewsburie with the commons for corne at

London which cam from Dansicke, Denmark and those foren places to ease

all England, and especially London. There was provided about 3,200

bushels for this town: it came by way of Brestow, and was sold to the

commons after the rate of 8_s._ the bushell of rie, which was in the

market at 12_s._ and better: and wheate at 14_s._ and 15_s._ Also there

was prepared to be baked of the said rye 40 bushells weeakely by the

towne bakers in peny bredd, two peny, three peny, and foure peny breed

for the poore to have it who were not able to by any bigger portion.

They were so unruly and gredie to have it, that the baylyffs, sixe men

and other officers had mutche adoe to serve them. The God most mightie

send plentie that his chosen flocke perrishe not, and dy for want as

many in all contreis in England die and goe in great numbers myserably

a begginge[287]."

[287] Owen and Blakeway, _History of Shrewsbury_, Vol. I. p. 400. Wheat

in Shrewsbury in May 1597 was 18_s._, rye 15_s._, beans 13_s._, while

in Sept. 1598 rye was 3_s._ 4_d._ and wheat 4_s._ 4_d._

It would appear that this kind of provision was usually made in

large towns, for one of the charges in a complaint brought against

two Newcastle aldermen was that of making no provision of corn for

the poor. The complaint was addressed to the Privy Council by the

discontented burgesses of the town of Newcastle and could hardly have

been made unless it were generally recognised that it was one of their

duties[288] to provide a store of this kind.

[288] _Cal. of State Papers_, May 31st, 1597. The Ipswich officials

were careful to provide for their needy neighbours. Every year from

1594 to 1597 loans were raised to buy corn, and it is always stated

that this corn was bought for the poor. In 1594 a loan of £200 was

so raised, and the town consented to bear any loss: the next year

£600 was thought necessary and three hundred quarters of rye were

purchased. On the 15th Oct. 1596, it was ordered that "100 quarters of

rye and 150 quarters of barley shall be bought for provision for the

poor and so much money as the same shall be valued at shall be lent

by the inhabitants of the town." Again, in 1597 three hundred combs

were provided at 4_s._ 6_d._ a bushel, and the charges for keeping it

and lading it were borne by the town. Nathaniel Bacon's _Annals of

Ipswich_, 25 Oct. 1594, 13 Oct. 1595, and 21 Feb. 1597.

How great the distress in Newcastle was at this time may be gathered

from the bare statements of the town accounts.

"Sept. 1597. Paide for the charges of buringe 9 poore folkes who died

for wante in the streets, for their graves making 3_s._

"Oct. 1597. Paid for the charge of buringe 16 poore folkes who died for

wante in the strettes 6_s._ 8_d._[289]."

[289] M. A. Richardson's _Tracts_, Vol. III. p. 44. See also Dec.

1596, "Paid for the charge of burying 7 poore folke which died in the

streete, for winding theme, grave making and carrying to the church

7_s._ 4_d._"

If a few people actually died of starvation many must have been nearly

starved.

All this indicates that the existing organisation for the relief of

the poor could not stand the strain of the continued distress of these

years. There were disturbances and complaints in many counties and a

disposition to lay the blame on the increase of enclosed land. The Dean

of Durham writes that the poverty of the country arises from decay of

tillage owing to the number of enclosures. The poor this year could

neither pay their landlords nor sow their corn, while many had to

travel sixty miles to buy bread[290].

[290] _Cal. of State Papers_, Jan. 1597, p. 347.

There was trouble too in making men obey the orders for the help of the

poor. Some were punished for ingrossing corn or for converting cottages

into tenements[291], while one man seems to have been rebellious

altogether: "They are knaves ... my goodes are my nowne," he said,

"they nor the queene nor the Councelle have to doe wi^{th} my goodes, I

will doe what I liste w^{th} them." The Court of Star Chamber sentenced

him to be fined £100, to be imprisoned, to wear papers, confessing his

fault and "to be bound for his good abearing[292]."

[291] _Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata_, John Hawarde, ed. W.

P. Baildon, F.S.A., pp. 76 and 78. Among others Edward Framingham, then

High Constable of Norfolk, was brought before the Court "for converting

thirteen houses into cottages and tenements and reserving the land

for his own occupation and for ingrossing corn and buying and selling

the same out of market." He was sentenced to imprisonment, a fine of

£500, confession of his fault in Cheapside and Norfolk, to pay £40 to

the poor people, and to restore the houses with the land to husbandry

again. _Ib._ p. 76.

[292] _Ib._ p. 104.

From Dorset and Wilts we hear rumours of discontent[293], and

in Oxfordshire and Norfolk there were actual insurrections. The

Oxfordshire rebels themselves say that they rose because of the

sufferings of the poor and the high price of corn. Although Sir William

Spencer, one of the gentlemen who had enclosed land, reported that

the rebellion was not begun by the poorer sort of people, Lord Norris

wrote to the Council, "I want your commission and some order to be

taken about enclosures on the western part of the shire where this stir

began, that the poor may be able to live[294]." It is thus evident

that poverty had something to do with the insurrection. One of the

Norfolk rioters said he had heard that the poor were up in the west

country, and that four or five of his neighbours would go to a justice

of the peace and desire to have corn cheap; if they could not get it

reasonably they would arise and get it by force, and if they did arise

they would knock down the best first; "they stayed onlye butt for a

drum[295]."

[293] _Cal. of State Papers_, June 1597, p. 433.

[294] _Calendar of State Papers_, Dec. 14, 1596, p. 316.

[295] _Dom. State Papers Queen Eliz._, Vol. 262, No. 151.

A letter from a Somersetshire justice, Mr Edward Hext, to Cecil gives

a vivid picture of the disturbed state of Somerset. One hundred and

eighty-three persons were to be set at liberty from the Sessions in

the year 1596, "And of these very few came to any good; for none will

receive them into service. And, in truth, work they will not, neither

can they without most extreme pains, by reason their sinews are so

benumbed and stiff through idleness that as their limbs being put to

any hard labour, will grieve them above measure: so as they will rather

hazard their lives, than work. And this I know to be true: for at such

time as our Houses of Correction were up (which are put down in most

parts of England, the more pity) I sent divers wandering suspicious

persons to the House of Correction: and all in general would beseech

me to send them rather to the gaol. And denying it them some confessed

felony unto me; by which they hazarded their lives; to the end they

would not be sent to the House of Correction, where they should be

forced to work." He estimates that only the fifth person that commits a

felony was brought to trial, for "most commonly the most simple country

man and woman ... are of opinion that they would not procure any man's

death for all the goods in the world." He thought the Egyptians were

not so dangerous for there were only thirty or forty in the shire while

there were three or four hundred sturdy rogues[296]. Mr Hext wrote in

a time of famine when the poor were on the verge of starvation and

when the west part of the neighbouring county of Oxfordshire was in

insurrection.

[296] Strype's _Annals_, Vol. IV., p. 404 seq. Letter to Burghley from

Edw. Hext dated 25th Sept. 1596.

This letter thus confirms the inference we should draw from the

state of Oxfordshire, Norfolk, and Durham that on the whole the

organisation for the relief of the poor was still insufficient. The

public opinion of the time seems to recognise that there was a close

connection between the bands of vagrants and the recent enclosures.

Men like Lord Norris, the Dean of Durham, and Francis Bacon saw that

if the agricultural changes were ultimately good for everyone, in the

meantime they were bad for the poor; it was clear that many people had

been without sufficient food, and the many insurrections of the time

showed that this condition of things was dangerous to the peace of the

country. The distress of these years thus brought vividly before men of

the time the evils and the danger of the existing economic condition

of the very poor, and the resulting awakening of public opinion was

probably the chief factor in the creation of the better legislation and

more efficient administration of later years.

A pamphlet written in 1597 by Henry Arth gives us considerable insight

as to the contemporary ideas with regard to the relief of poverty, and

also as to the extent to which the law was executed at the time[297].

The writer makes a list of the various classes included under the term

"poor"; he uses the word to include those who require either relief

or coercion from the public. He mentions both "such as are yong and

lustie yet unwilling to labour," and "such as bee overcharged with

children having nothing to maintaine them but their hand labour." It

is in this sense that the word is most frequently used at the time.

Arth goes on to enumerate the causes of poverty, the sins of the

poor and the actions of the "poore makers." The poor were accused of

idleness, wasting their goods in "bibbing and belly cheare," discontent

and "seldome repairing to their parish churches to heare and learne

their duties better." The sins of the "poore makers" throw more light

on the economic changes of the time. Amongst these are mentioned

the "importable oppression of many landlords," the "unconscionable

extortion of all usurers," the "unsatiable covetousnesse in

cornemongers," "the discharging of seruants and apprentices," and the

"want of execution of good lawes and statutes." Magistrates fail to

execute the laws, ministers fail to admonish them, and so "the most do

live in disorder." But there are exceptions. The "strangers" in London

"may be a patterne in these respects to all our English nation," for

they keep all their fellow-countrymen from idleness and begging, and

find work and wages for their unemployed. If any of them become poor

"their state is imparted unto their company, and then commonly they

abstaine one meale on the next Lordes day and give the price thereof

towardes the parties maintenance." Moreover some well-disposed English

people did their duty in the matter. In some districts a man "shall

see not one begger asking any almes (except one or two that keepe

the common box according to the order) to take the benevolence of

trauellers and strangers so well are the statutes observed in those

places."

[297] "Provision for the poore now in penurie." Explained by H. A.

Printed by Thomas Creede 1597. A copy is in the British Museum.

Wakefield, where the writer lives, is one of these districts, "though

the poore be many and needy yet thus much I may speak to my knowledge

that if any be pinched with penurie the default especially resteth in

themselves though some other persons can not be excused. For, (to the

prayse of God bee it spoken) there is not onelie a house of correction

according to the lawe, but withall, certain stockes of money put forth

into honest clothiers' handes who are bounde with good sureties to set

all the poore to worke, after five pence or sixe pence a pound of wooll

spinning (as they shall deserve) if they will fetch it.

"For the impotent poore in every streete, they haue beene considered

of (by the most able and forwarde men of that towne) and a generall

ceassement voluntarie made for their supplie weekelie, which by

confirmation of her Maiesties justices is still kept of euerie able

householder, besides the Wednesdayes Suppers, for the which the

Church-wardens take paynes accordingly, wherein if euerie one woulde

discharge that dutie required of her Maiestie to let the poore haue the

full benefite of their sayde suppers, there should not one person haue

cause to begge there for all this deare yeare. As for the yonger sort,

fitte to learne trades and occupations there is order taken to put them

to apprentisshippe or otherwise to seruice."

From this pamphlet we see therefore that the law was sometimes well

executed in particular places although as a rule it was negligently

enforced. This view of the matter is confirmed by the rest of the

evidence concerning the period from 1569 to 1597. It is the period of

the growth of legislation and of the machinery of administration, but

the working together of the whole system was also locally successful.

At Reading, St Albans, Norwich, Leicester, York and Ipswich there

is abundant evidence to show that many steps were taken to relieve

the poor, while in Gloucester also we can see that increased action

was taken in this direction, and that the statute of 1572 was more

vigorously enforced than its predecessors. The City controlled the two

hospitals of St Bartholomew and of St Margaret[298] and the corporation

yearly elected a president, a treasurer, two surveyors, two almoners

and two scrutineers to look after them. For certain years the accounts

of Governor, Treasurer, Almoner and Scrutineer of St Bartholomew's

still exist[299]. Before 1569 the house of the White Friars had been

made into a House of Correction. For three parishes the accounts of

the collectors of the poor exist for the years 1572-3 and for five

other parishes for one or more of the succeeding ten years[300]. It

would thus seem that the statute of 1572 was put regularly in execution

in Gloucester and that this was the first statute that was thus

regularly enforced.

[298] Rudder's _Gloucestershire_, pp. 186, 202. Queen Elizabeth granted

the patronage of St Mary Magdalen also to the City on Dec. 4th, 41 Qu.

Eliz. p. 187.

[299] _Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester._

No. 1335. 1569-70. Governor's account. Almoners and Governors exist as

early as 1558-9. No. 1327.

No. 1336. 1570-71. Almoner's account.

No. 1337. 1570-71. Treasurer's account.

No. 1339. 1570-71. Almoner's account.

No. 1340. 1573-74. Scrutinear's account, etc.

The Masters' accounts of St Margaret's are also preserved for the years

1556, 1560-1, 1561-2. _Ib._ p. 459.

[300] _Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester._

Accounts of the Collectors for the poor.

No. 1349. 1572-3. Parish of St Nicholas, St Mary de Lode and St Mary

de Crypt.

1350. 1575-6. Parish of Holy Trinity.

1352. " " Graslane.

1352. " " St Michael.

1353. " " St Katherine.

1355. 1576. " St Ewen, etc.

The only account of this kind before 1572 is an undated account of the

reign of Queen Elizabeth in a time of plague.

There is comparatively little evidence during the period of the

proceedings of justices of the peace in the country, but we have seen

that Mr Sands in Parliament and the justices themselves in their

report to the Privy Council tell us that in Worcestershire every man

was relieved at his own home. We have also seen that several Houses

of Correction had been established and that their value as part of

the organisation was recognised. It is thus clear that in many places

the local officials were being trained to their duties, and that the

statutes were really put in execution, not completely or everywhere,

but still to some extent and in many places[301].

[301] The effect of the years of scarcity in stimulating the vigour

of the justices is illustrated by a set of orders agreed upon by the

justices of the peace of Cornwall in April 1597. A copy was sent by Sir

Francis Godolphin to Sir Robert Cecil.

The orders first provide for a survey of all the poor which was to

distinguish between those who could earn part of their subsistence

and those who were altogether incapable and also for a list of the

householders who could contribute to their relief. The constables

and chief governors of the parish were to state whether they would

themselves undertake the relief of the parish or whether the justices

should levy a weekly rate for the purpose. After arrangements for

supporting the poor had thus been made beggars were to be severely

punished, fines for absence from church were to be rigorously exacted

and the fast of two meals weekly was to be carefully observed.

The orders further command an arrangement like that known as the

"roundsman" system for the unemployed: "Such poor as cannot provide

work for themselves are to present themselves in a convenient place in

the church on the Sabbath day a little before the ending of morning

and evening prayer and as soon as prayer is ended order shall be taken

to send them abroad among such householders as shall maintain them

meat, work and such wages as they can deserve for the week following"

(_Hatfield MSS._ VII. p. 161). These measures were taken before the

statute of 1597 was passed, and, in accordance with the statute of

1572, the justices and not the overseers were to make the rate. They

show an improvement in Cornish poor relief, not dependent on the

statute of 1597 but like the statute itself brought into existence by

the distress of the years of scarcity.

In Parliament legislative experiments were still tried, and many of

the men in Parliament, as justices of the peace or as members of the

Privy Council, were obtaining experience of the practical working of

the law. At the beginning of the period more stress was laid upon

repression than upon relief. But the events of the years of scarcity

brought home to the minds of most people the weakness occasioned by

the partial execution of the existing system. In most places it could

not stand the strain. The fact that the difficulties of the poor were

partly due to enclosures and not only to the idleness of the sturdy

vagrant was fully recognised. The danger of the distress of the poor

was also apparent: some rose in insurrection, many others, like the

Norfolk peasant, "stayed butt for a drum," all must have greatly

suffered. Consequently the whole question was re-opened, a statute

laying stress on relief was produced and a more efficient organisation

was made possible. A system of public poor relief could not be suddenly

established in a country like Elizabethan England. It had its basis in

the recognised local custom of parochial collections, and the growing

sense of municipal duty in the matter. Still, but for the development

of the action of the Privy Council, but for the growing experience of

members of Parliament, and but for the training of local officials and

of the general public during these years, probably the conception, and

certainly the execution, of the act of 1597 would have been impossible.