PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
1597-1644.
1. Characteristics of the period.
2. Legislation from 1597 to 1644.
Administrative machinery.
3. Action of the Privy Council before 1629.
4. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the provision
of corn.
5. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the unemployed.
6. The Book of Orders as a whole and the royal commission of 1630/1.
7. Interference with wages as a method of helping the poor.
8. Summary.
[Sidenote: 1. Characteristics of the period.]
The years between 1597 and 1644 are in many respects a unique period in
the history of English poor relief. A great deal of evidence exists,
which seems to indicate, that in many places during some of these years
the whole of the Elizabethan poor law was put in execution: that is,
work was provided for the unemployed as well as relief for the impotent.
After the Civil War a part only of the system survived. There are thus
grounds for believing that never since the days of Charles I. have
we had either so much provision of work for the able-bodied or so
complete a system of looking after the more needy classes when they
were suffering from the effects of fire, pestilence and famine. For
this reason alone the history of the poor at this period is especially
interesting, and it is also at this time that the history of the poor
is more directly connected than usual with the history of the nation as
a whole.
We will trace as in the preceding periods the history of legislation
and of the action of the Privy Council. But the relief of the poor is
a matter which can only be efficiently administered by men who have a
great knowledge of detail. The action of the Privy Council would have
had very little effect unless there had been an efficient system of
local government.
We will therefore examine the local machinery of administration as
well as the central and will see what kind of work was done by judges,
justices and overseers in regard to the relief of the poor. We shall
then know who did the duties with regard to relief now performed by the
Local Government Board, Boards of Guardians, magistrates, and relieving
officers.
We must then regard the system of poor relief from another point of
view and see what kind of relief could be obtained both in the country
and in the towns by the different classes of poor. This will include
the help afforded to the whole of the poorer population in years of
scarcity as well as the means that were taken in ordinary times to
pension the old, to train and maintain children, and to find work for
the unemployed.
Lastly we will endeavour to determine when and where the administrative
machinery was really set in motion and how far the relief afforded
to the different classes of poor was given all over the country. The
answer to these questions will enable us to see why it is that in
England poor laws were not only made but administered, while in some
other countries they were not administered even after they had been
made.
[Sidenote: 2. Legislation from 1597 to 1644.]
The work accomplished with regard to the poor by Parliament was
unimportant during the period from 1597 to 1644 but some slight changes
were made in the law. It was in 1601 that the statute on which our
system of poor relief has since rested was passed in its final form.
This law, known as the 43 Eliz. c. 2, is often regarded as inaugurating
new methods of dealing with the poor, but as a matter of fact few
important legal enactments have initiated fewer innovations. It is
simply a re-enactment with very slight alterations of the statute of
1597-8. The clause of the statute of 1597 which declared all beggars
to be rogues if they asked for anything more than food was omitted
in 1601, while the liability of parents to support their children,
imposed in 1597, was in 1601 extended to grandparents also. Otherwise
the slight differences between the two Acts consist chiefly of
modifications of detail, designed to render certain doubtful points of
law[302]. This statute of 1601 was itself only passed as a temporary
measure but it was continued by the Parliaments both of James I. and of
Charles I. It remained by far the most important regulation concerning
the relief of the poor until the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834[303],
and is in force as the basis of our system of Poor Relief at the
present day.
[302] Other differences between the two Acts were as follows:
1597-8.
(1) Four Overseers were to be nominated
yearly in Easter week.
(2) Every inhabitant or occupier of
lands in the parish was to be assessed.
(3) People refusing to work were to
be sent to the House of Correction.
(4) A girl might be apprenticed
until 21.
(5) In 1597-8 the Mayors or Head
Officers of Corporate Towns being
justices of the peace had the same
authority within their towns as justices
of the peace in the country.
(6) If a parish be in two counties
or partly in a county and partly in a
borough the justices or head officers
of the towns were to "deal and intermeddle"
only within their own "Liberty."
1601.
(1) Four, three or two Overseers
were to be nominated according to the
size of the parish in Easter week or
within a month after Easter.
(2) In 1601, the liability of the
parish, vicar, owner of tithes impropriate
and of saleable underwoods and
of the occupiers of houses is specially
mentioned.
(3) In 1601 they might be sent to
the House of Correction or gaol, probably
because there was not yet everywhere
a House of Correction.
(4) If she married she was released
at the time of her marriage.
(5) In 1601, these powers were extended
and the Town officials had not
only the same authority as the justices
out of their sessions and at their
sessions, but the same power as was
appointed "to any two or more of them
or to the justices of the peace in their
Quarter Sessions." Every Alderman
of the City of London in his Ward
had the same power as one or two
justices in the county.
(6) If the parish were in two counties
or partly in a county and partly
in a borough there were only the one
set of Overseers, but the justices or
Mayors &c. were to be responsible for
the execution of the Act only within
the part of the parish in their own
counties or borough and the Overseers
were to account to both.
(7) In 1601 the penalty on justices
for neglecting to nominate Overseers
was fixed at £5.
(8) A special order was made that
the island of Foulness should be treated
as a parish.
(9) It was also provided that if an
action for trespass should be brought
against anyone acting in accordance
with the provisions of the statute, it
should be lawful for him to plead
"Not Guilty" or to plead the authority
of the Act. He was to be entitled to
treble damages "by reason of his
wrongfull vexacon."
Between the passing of these two Acts a series of resolutions was
circulated which related to the statute of 1597. These were attributed
to the judges and if they correctly stated the law several of the
new clauses of 1601 were already legally binding. Thus four of the
resolutions were as follows:
Res. 16. By this word parents is understoode a father or a grandfather,
mother or grandmother, being persons able.
Res. 17. Within the word children is included any childe, or
grandchilde, being able.
Res. 18. Parsons or Vicars &c. bee bound (as inhabitants) to the relief
of the poore as wel as others that inhabite within the parish.
Res. 19. Everie one that hath Tithes impropriate, coale mines or
lands in manuel occupation &c. is chargeable. And so for such as haue
saleable woods proportioning the same to an annual benefite.
W. Lambard, _Eirenarcha_, ed. 1599 after p. 206. See E. Cannan, _Hist.
of Local Rates_, p. 75.
[303] 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 76 (1834).
In comparison with this statute all other legislation of the period on
the subject is of small importance, but several additions were made to
the law, and in four cases these contain provisions which supplement
the system of relief ordered by the principal enactment of 1601.
The first of these concerns maimed soldiers and was also passed in
1601[304]. The two former statutes on the subject, 35 Eliz. c. 4, and
39 Eliz. c. 21, were repealed, but the provisions of both of them were
practically re-enacted. A County Treasurer was to be elected who was
to pay pensions to those who had been wounded or maimed in the wars.
The money was to be raised by a county rate levied on the parishes
as formerly provided, but the amount that might be so raised was now
increased to an average of sixpence weekly from every parish with
a maximum of tenpence from the most highly rated parishes. Another
enactment relating to the relief of the poor was the 43 Eliz. c. 4.
This was likewise passed in 1601 and substantially re-enacts a statute
of 1597 (39 Eliz. c. 6). It provides for inquiries into breaches of
trust by means of writs directed by the Lord Chancellor to the bishop
of the diocese. The list given of the kinds of charity affected shows
how great and varied was the endowed almsgiving of the time. Some funds
had been assigned for "reliefe of aged impotent and poore people; some
for maintenance of sicke and maymed souldiers and marriners schooles
of learninge, free schooles and schollers in Universities; some for
repaire of bridges, portes, havens, causwaies, churches, sea bankes and
highwaies; some for educacon and prefermente of orphans; some for or
towardes reliefe, stocke or maintenance for howses of correccon; some
for mariages of poore maides; some for supportacon, ayde and helpe of
younge tradesmen, handicraftesmen and persons decayed; and others for
reliefe or redemption of prisoners or captives and for aide or ease of
any poore inhabitants concerninge paymente of fifteenes, settinge out
of souldiers and other taxes[305]." In both years in which the great
poor laws were passed, in 1597 and in 1601, a statute of this kind
was authorised. The fact indicates that Parliament desired to maintain
and strengthen the older voluntary system of charity in order that it
might work concurrently with the newer organisation now growing up. A
third measure relating to the relief of the poor was passed in 1603
and provided that a special rate might be levied for the sustenance of
those infected with plague; the rate in this case was to be levied,
not only from the parish but from the whole of the surrounding
district[306].
[304] 43 Eliz. c. 3. It is interesting to notice that this provision
for maimed soldiers was due to Sir Robert Cecil, Hatfield MSS. VII. p.
160.
[305] Bequests for some of the more unusual of these purposes occur
among the charities of Ipswich.
Thus in (1513) Jan. 14, the following entry is made: "Edm. Danby at
this Court declared that he had given to the Town lands and tenem^{ts}
in vallew 6^{li} p annu' to the end that they should discharge the
poore commonalty of the Towne of all dismes, quinziemes and charges
w^{ch} shall happen: the lands doe lye in Rushmere." Bacon's _Annals of
Ipswich_, p. 186.
Mr Henry Tooley, Portman of Ipswich, in a will dated Nov. 4, 1550
bequeathed:
£100 to the repairing of Bone Bridge.
£20 to the amending of the Haven.
£100 towards repairing and amending certain highways.
20_s._ to every maid who is fatherless and poor and shall marry within
Ipswich until £60 should be spent.
An Indenture of 1513 recites that a Mr Drayle left £70 in order to
release natives and foreigners from certain tolls &c. Ipswich, _Gifts
and Legacies_, pp. 1 and 168.
[306] 1 James I. c. 31.
But the fourth regulation of this kind is the most important. It was
passed in 1609-10 and concerned the building of Houses of Correction.
The Bill introduced on this subject in 1597 had been rejected after
much dispute and discussion and in its place the statute "on rogues"
had been hastily passed; this had repealed all the old regulations
concerning Houses of Correction and although it gave the justices the
power of levying a rate for the establishment of such institutions it
had not compelled them to use the power. The law therefore on this
point was much less exacting in its requirements than that which had
previously been in force. The new enactment of 1609-10 therefore
provided that one or more Houses of Correction must be erected within
every county. It is here laid down that these houses were to be used
to set "rogues or such other idle persons on worke," and no mention is
made of the deserving unemployed[307]. This therefore probably marks
the time when Houses of Correction ceased to be half workhouses and
became very much more like gaols.
[307] 7 James I. c. 4.
Thus while the law of 1601 is the basis on which relief was given
during the period, additional provision was made during the next ten
years for the assistance of maimed soldiers and of persons infected
with plague, and for the building of Houses of Correction[308].
[308] The following are other statutes concerning the relief of the
poor and passed during the period 1597 to 1644:
1 James I. c. 7. Removes the exemption of glassmen from the statute
of rogues. States that no licence by a nobleman shall exempt players
and provides for the branding and in certain cases for the death of
dangerous rogues.
1 James I. c. 25. Continues 43 Eliz. c. 2 and provides that masters may
retain the pauper apprentices whom the Overseers have bound to them.
7 James I. c. 3. Enacts various provisions with the object of securing
that funds which had been left to bind poor children apprentices shall
be properly employed.
21 James I. c. 1. States that the licence to erect "abiding or working
houses for the poor" is to continue for ever.
21 James I. c. 28. Continues 43 Eliz. c. 3, with addition of 1 Jac. I.
c. 25. Also continues 1 James I. c. 7, and 7 James I. c. 4, repeals 11
Hen. VII. c. 2, and 19 Hen. VII. c. 19, 12 Ric. II. cc. 3-9, and also
22 Hen. VIII. c. 12 and 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 16.
3 Chas. I. c. 5. Continues 43 Eliz. c. 2, and empowers Overseers to
set up any trade they will, provided it is only for the purpose of
employing the poor, notwithstanding any statute to the contrary. This
last enactment was probably designed to protect the Overseers from
penalties for violating the statute of apprenticeship.
Another series of statutes assigns the fines for their infraction to
the relief of the poor. Some of these are as follows:
1 Jac. I. c. 27, 7 Jac. I. c. 11, 21 Jac. I. c. 28, most of the fines
for the infraction of the game laws.
1 Jac. I. c. 9. Fines of alehouse keepers for allowing people to sit
tippling in their alehouses or for selling for a penny less than one
quart of best beer or two quarts of small.
4 Jac. I. c. 5. } Fine of 5_s._ for drunkenness or 3_s._ 4_d._ for
21 Jac. I. c. 7.} sitting drinking in an alehouse in one's own parish.
3 Jac. I. c. 4. Fine of one shilling for absence from church.
21 Jac. I. c. 18. Fines for breaking certain regulations for making
cloth.
21 Jac. I. c. 20. Fine for profane swearing, one shilling.
1 Car. I. c. 1. Fine for meeting for games outside one's own parish on
Sunday or in one's own parish for unlawful games.
3 Car. I. c. 2. Fine of 20_s._ for carriers driving on Sunday.
Fine of 6_s._ 8_d._ for butchers killing meat on Sunday.
Before leaving the statutes it is perhaps worth while to notice the
proviso that exists in so many of them in favour of John Dutton. The
lord of Dutton claimed jurisdiction over the minstrels of Cheshire. In
the reign of John, the Earl of Chester was imprisoned by the Welsh in
Rhuddlan Castle. He sent for aid to Roger de Lacy then the Constable
of Cheshire. It was the time of Chester fair. De Lacy collected a
multitude of the shoemakers, fiddlers and loiterers who were in the
town and with this force released the Earl. For this he obtained a
grant for himself and his heirs of jurisdiction over minstrels and over
disorderly characters in Cheshire. In 1216 this privilege was granted
by John de Lacy to Hugh Dutton and remained in the hands of the lords
of Dutton through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was the
custom for the lord of Dutton to hold a Court at Chester on Midsummer
day and in 1498 he received from the whole body of minstrels four
flagons of wine and a lance with fourpence halfpenny from each of them.
A Court of this kind was held as late as 1756[309]. In nearly all the
statutes concerning vagabonds until that of 1822, the rights of John
Dutton's heirs were preserved, so that in the seventeenth century the
minstrels of Cheshire, licensed by the lord of Dutton, might wander
without fear of the penalty inflicted on wanderers elsewhere,--a
curious but direct consequence of an incident of border warfare in the
early part of the thirteenth century. Few facts illustrate better both
the continuity of English history and the toleration of anomalies by
English law than this perpetuation of the quaint jurisdiction of the
house of Dutton for more than six centuries.
[309] Lysons' _Cheshire_, p. 523 seq.
Some of the legal handbooks throw considerable light on the way in
which these statutes were interpreted. In the seventeenth century "The
Countrey Justice" was one of the most popular of these books. The
writer, Michael Dalton, defines the meaning of the term "poor." Like
Arth, he divides the poor into three kinds, "the poore by impotency and
defect," the "poore by casualty," and the "thriftlesse poore." This
classification was common at the time and dates back to the reign of
Edward VI. The "poore by impotency and defect" included the aged and
decrepit, the orphan child, lunatic, blind or lame people, or those
who were diseased. The term "poore by casualty" meant maimed people,
householders who had lost their property owing to loss from "fire,
water, robbery or suretiship, &c." and poor men "overcharged with
children." Among the "thriftlesse poore" were included "the riotous and
prodigall person that consumeth all with play or drinking," dissolute
and slothful people, those who wilfully spoil their work, and vagabonds
who will abide in no service or place. The "poore by impotency" were to
be provided with enough to sustain them properly; the poor by casualty
were to be "holden or set to work by the overseers," and further
relieved according to their need, but the thriftless poor were to go
to the House of Correction. None of these last, he says, are to have
relief from the town for that "were a meanes to nourish them in their
lewdnesse or idlenesse which take it, to rob others of releefe that
want it, to wrong those of their money that pay it, and to condemn them
of oversight which dispose it[310]."
[310] Michael Dalton, "The Countrey Justice," ed. 1635, p. 100.
So far the requirements of the law are similar to those of to-day,
but some of Dalton's instructions remind us of the difference between
the Elizabethan poor law and that of our own time. The poor law was
originally part of a paternal system of government: gentlemen were
ordered home to their estates, farmers were required to bring their
corn to market, cloth manufacturers had to carry on their trade under
well-defined regulations, and merchants were obliged to trade in the
manner which was thought to conduce most to the good order and to
the power of the nation. Workmen also were ordered to work whether
they liked it or not, and, if the law were enforced, had to accept
the wages fixed by the justices. Dalton therefore goes on to quote
another clause of the poor law which has long fallen into disuse. The
overseers were to set to work "all such persons (maried or unmaried) as
having no meanes to maintaine them, use no ordinary and daily trade of
life to get their living by[311]." If they refused the work appointed
them they were to go to the House of Correction. Moreover those who
refused to work for the wages commonly given and had not "lawfull
meanes to live by" were not to be sent to the parish where they were
legally settled but were to go to the House of Correction "upon
consideration had of both the statutes of the poore and rogues[312]."
Already any man between twelve and sixty who had not property and was
not a skilled workman might be compelled to serve in husbandry by
anyone who wanted a workman[313]. The poor law went a step farther.
Not only might an employer require an unemployed workman to work
for him but the overseers were obliged to see that he was employed.
Occasionally something seems to have been done to put this clause of
the statute into execution. Thus in a charge given to the overseers
of a division in 1623, these officials were ordered to give the names
of those refusing to work to the justices in order that the offenders
might be sent to the House of Correction. Moreover they were also
commanded "that uppon every Satturday at night or Sunday morninge they
fayle not to enquire and take knowledge what labour and work they"
(the workmen) "are provided of for the week followinge to the end that
if any be unprovided of work they may [therewith] be supplied by the
overseers who for that purpose are to enquire for worke for them and
to provide materialls for the men that are olde and weake and for the
women and children[314]." In other cases we hear of men being punished
for "living idly," and maintaining themselves "none knowes howe[315]";
and one of the regular items in the reports returned to the Book of
Orders of 1631 concerned the number who lived out of service[316].
The existence of this part of the law and its occasional enforcement
reminds us that the poor law once formed part of an economic system
entirely different from our own, in which not only paupers, but
everyone had to do what the government commanded on conditions settled
by authority.
[311] _Ibid._, p. 93. Dalton is here quoting almost exactly the words
of the statutes 39 Eliz. c. 3, 43 Eliz. c. 2.
[312] Resolutions of the judges, No. 10, Lambarde's _Eirenarcha_ (1599)
after p. 206. Dalton, p. 99. It is interesting to notice that a case
concerning the present law on this point has been recently before the
Courts. The Guardians of the poor in Merthyr Tydfil established labour
yards and relief works for the purpose of affording outdoor relief to
able-bodied persons during a strike. An action was brought by, and
on behalf of, the ratepayers of the district against the Guardians
asking for a declaration that the establishment of relief works for the
purpose of providing outdoor relief for able-bodied persons during a
strike was a breach of the Guardians' statutory rights and duties, and
also asking for an injunction to restrain the defendants from paying
for these relief works out of the common fund when there was plenty of
work to be had if the men would agree to accept the wages offered.
It was held by Lord Justice Romer that in any case of urgent necessity
an able-bodied man or his family ought to have such relief from the
Guardians as might be immediately required, even if the necessity had
arisen from the man wilfully refusing to work. But when the urgent
pressure was relieved, the Guardians ought to require the man to
work, and if he were able to get work and still refused they ought
to prosecute him under the Vagrancy Acts. It was also decided that
though the Court had jurisdiction in an action at the instance of the
ratepayers to restrain Guardians from applying the poor rates for
unauthorised purposes, still such an action should not be instituted
for the purpose of asking the Court whether the Guardians had been
right or wrong in granting relief in particular cases. The proper
course for the ratepayers to take when objecting to expenditure was to
go before the auditors appointed by the Local Government Board or to
appeal to the Local Government Board itself. In the present case no
instance of relief given except for urgent necessity had been proved
and no instances of improper relief had been brought before the Court.
The action therefore was dismissed. Attorney-General and others _v._
Merthyr Tydfil Guardians, March 27th, 1899. _Weekly Notes_, April 1st,
p. 38.
[313] 5 Eliz. c. 4. Anyone who was unmarried or under thirty even if he
had a skilled trade could be compelled to serve in that trade or all
artificers could be obliged to help in harvest.
[314] "A true copy of the charge given to the overseers of every towne
the 19th of December 1623," Tanner MSS., 73 II. § 390. The document
seems to relate to some particular division of a county which is not
mentioned.
[315] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I. Vol. 189, No. 66. See Chapter IX.
[316] Thus the overseers of "Idlestrey" (Elstree) report, "We have none
that live out of service ydlely or otherwise." See also "Questions
touching Labourers," Appendix XII. A. Cases of the enforcement of
regulations of this kind occur early in Elizabeth's reign at Norwich.
Thus in 1571 a certain Agnes Smith "is to be putt to service," "Meke's
wife and Garodes wife ar to be with the select weomen" and a certain
Suzan Brown if not hired for the whole year is "to goo to service," the
"Maiores Booke for the poore." Norwich MSS.
[Sidenote: 3. The action of the Privy Council before 1629.]
We will now turn to the administration of the law and we will first see
how this was influenced by the central government. This action of the
central government is important. In London, in Worcester and in Norwich
we have seen that the local administration was at one time successful,
but it tended to become slack when its original founders in county or
borough were followed by less vigorous successors. Without steady and
continuous pressure from a central authority on the local officials it
seems probable that in this period, as in the preceding century, the
laws concerning the poor would never have been energetically executed
in the greater part of England. It is this pressure that was supplied
by the increased activity of the Privy Council.
We will first examine a few instances of the Council's action before
1629, and we will then trace its policy from 1629 to 1644.
Between 1597 and 1629 the orders in Council and royal proclamations
do not differ greatly from those of the previous period; they still
enforce indirect measures for the relief of the poor by means of an
organisation for supplying the markets with corn and keeping the price
more uniform. After 1597 however the orders which relate also to the
ordinary relief of the poor by means of pensions for the old and work
for the unemployed became of greater relative importance, and during
the crisis of 1622-3 they were much better enforced.
Thus almost immediately after the passing of the poor law of 1597
efforts are made by the Council to secure its proper administration. On
April 5th, 1598, a letter is sent by the Council to the High Sheriff
and the justices of the peace in the several counties of England and
Wales. The writers do not doubt that the Judges of the Assize have
admonished the justices that special care must be taken to execute the
laws for the relief of poorer people and maimed soldiers as well as
the laws connected with vagabonds and tillage. "Nevertheless," they go
on to say, "consideringe the remisseness that hath bin used generally
by the justices of the peace in manie parts of the realm" they send
a letter themselves directly to the justices and order that care be
taken to see the new poor law "generally put into execution[317]." The
writers order the justices when they meet in Quarter Sessions after
Easter to take "speciall order amongst" themselves "for one strict
and uniform course to be houlden for the due observinge and puttinge
in execucon of the same lawes and statutes." They were also to meet
from time to time and make the under officers give an account of their
proceedings. This letter shows the Privy Council enforcing the whole
of the ordinary administration of relief by exactly the same means
that had formerly been used to enforce the measures concerning corn
and vagrants in 1572 and 1586. It is the first time in which this
interference seems primarily dictated by motives of humanity and not
mainly by a desire to maintain order.
[317] Privy Council Register, April 5th, 1598. With a note that it was
dated March 25th, 1598 "and stayed until this present." The records
of the proceedings of the Privy Council are to some extent preserved
in the Privy Council Register. This consists of an almost continuous
series of manuscripts preserved at the Privy Council Office. They are
now being printed but are still unpublished so far as the seventeenth
century is concerned. The volume containing the records from 1603 to
1612 is missing. The Register is by no means complete; only some of the
letters and proceedings of the Council are entered there.
Again in 1603 during a time of plague proclamations were issued
ordering the punishment of rogues, and the return of gentlemen to their
homes, in order that they might relieve the poor by their ordinary
hospitality and might take action for preventing the infection of the
plague[318].
[318] Little Proclamation Book, James I., No. 27 and No. 23.
In 1608 a series of measures concern the supply of grain to the
poor. In 1607 there had been serious disturbances in Northampton and
elsewhere on account of enclosures. The harvest in 1608 was bad and
the Council appear to have feared further disorder. They were careful
to issue a book of orders containing regulations similar to the orders
of 1587 and 1594. Two proclamations followed. The first commanded the
careful execution of the Book of Orders and the return of gentlemen to
their households[319]; the second prohibited the making of more malt
than was necessary "in order that the poor may have sufficient store
of barley to make bread for their sustenance at reasonable prices in
this time of scarcity of wheat and rye[320]." In 1608, however, the
price of barley was not much affected and the action of the Council was
discontinued.
[319] _Ib._, No. 88. This proclamation states that special orders had
already been issued for preventing and remedying the dearth of grain.
The orders are stated to command the punishment of engrossers &c., and
the prevention of the transportation of corn; the furnishing of the
markets rateably and weekly &c.
[320] _Ib._, No. 94. 12th Dec. 1608.
In 1621 to 1623 the sufferings of the poor were much more serious, and
the measures of the Council concerned both the supply of corn and the
direct relief of the poor.
As early as January 1619/20 a commission was drawn up for the due
execution of the laws for the relief of the poor in almost exactly
the same terms as that of January 1630/1[321]. Apparently the distress
was then due chiefly to the beginning of a crisis in the cloth trade,
for in May 1620 an inquiry was ordered into the decay of cloth-making
in Wiltshire[322]. During the three following years the poverty of the
poor increased.
[321] Drafts of this commission are in existence both in the British
Museum and Bodleian, and its issue was therefore contemplated, but
it does not follow that it was actually issued. Brit. Mus. MSS. No.
12,504, Tanner MSS. lxxv. 175.
[322] _Privy Council Register_, 12th May, 1620. The Merchant
Adventurers in reply said the vent of cloth was so little because so
many difficulties were thrown in the way of their sale of gold and
silver thread and the glass goods of the Levant.
The harvests of 1619 and 1620 had been exceptionally favourable, those
of 1621 and 1622 were unusually bad[323]. In Somerset four or five
hundred people assembled and took corn from those that carried it to
market, and in many other parts of the country there were similar
disturbances[324].
[323] The average prices given by Prof. Rogers are as follows:
1619 1620 1621 1622
Wheat per quarter 25_s._ 10½_d._ 25_s._ 5_d._ 40_s._ 9_d._ 51_s._ 1_d._
Barley " " 14_s._ 11½_d._ 11_s._ 4½_d._ 21_s._ 2¾_d._ 27_s._ 2¼_d._
[324] _Privy Council Register_, 8th Mar. 1622. In a letter from Locke
to Carleton it is stated that in the cloth-making counties the poor
have assembled in troops of forty and fifty and have gone to the houses
of the rich demanding meat and money; they had also taken provisions
which were for sale in the market. _Cal. of State Papers_, Feb. 16,
1622.
The Council adopted the usual methods; the Scarcity Book of Orders was
amended and reissued, and two proclamations were drawn up ordering the
restraint of maltsters and a reduction in the number of alehouses;
the proclamation of October, 1622, expressly states that this was
done because "barley is in time of scarcitie the bread-corne of the
poore[325]."
[325] Minute of the proclamation. _Dom. S. P._, Jac. I., Vol. 133, No.
52. The enforcement of the orders is again especially commended in
another proclamation issued on the 22nd Dec. 1622. _Large Proc. Bk._,
No. 109.
Besides this the special commands addressed to the country gentlemen
to return home were more emphatic than in former times, especially
at Christmas in 1622. Their presence was necessary for two reasons.
English gentlemen still kept great households and relieved many by
their hospitality, and they also were expected to maintain order
in their districts. They furnished information to the Government,
arranged measures of relief for the poor and, if necessary, quelled
and punished disorder. James I. had a great idea of their importance:
he is credited with the remark to the effect that a country gentleman
in town is like a ship at sea, which looks very small, while a country
gentleman in the country is like a ship in a river, which looks very
big. In 1622, therefore, two proclamations were issued ordering
gentlemen to return to the country.
In the earlier of these one of the reasons for the regulation is stated
to be because of "inconveniences which of necessity must ensue by the
absence of those out of their countries upon whose care a great and
principall part of the subordinate government of this realme doth
depend[326]." In the second the king expressed his pleasure that so
many had obeyed, and his displeasure with those who remained in London
because he was "perswaded that by this way of reviving the laudable
and ancient housekeeping of this realme the poore and such as are
most pinched in times of scarcity and want will be much releeved and
comforted[327]."
[326] _Large Proc. Bk._, No. 108, 20th Nov. 1622.
[327] _Ib._, No. 109.
From a letter written in 1622 we find that the country gentlemen were
by no means pleased at leaving the pleasures of Court; and "divers
lords and personages of qualitie," we are told, "have made meanes to
be dispensed w^{th}all for going into the countrie this Christmas
according to the proclamation but yt will not be graunted, so that they
packe away on all sides for feare of the worst, yet the L. Burghley
hath found favor in regard of his father's age and weakenes[328]." The
king was, however, firm in most cases, and not only issued the second
proclamation in Dec. 22nd, 1622, but by a third in March 1623[329],
continued the regulations, so that it is clear this measure was
considered important and was found successful.
[328] Letter of Chamberlain to Carleton, _Dom. S. P._, Vol. 134, No.
801.
[329] _Cal. of State Papers_, Mar. 26th, 1623.
But in 1622-3 the orders of the Council do not only provide for the
supply of the markets with corn. The poor were as much distressed by
want of work as by the high price of bread. For some years there had
been depression in the cloth trade, partly owing to the outbreak of
the Thirty Years' War, and partly to the small amount of coin which
was in circulation in England. In 1622 the Spanish ports also were
closed to English cloth. The merchants and manufacturers found that
heavy stocks were on their hands and ceased to employ the workmen. As
in 1527 and in 1586 the lords of the Council tried to remedy the evil
by forcing the employers to find work for their men. In Feb. 1621/22
they sent to the justices of ten of the clothmaking counties. They say
letters have been written to them setting forth the "decay of cloathing
and the great distresse thereby fallen upon the weavers, spinners and
ffullers in divers counties for want of worke." They recognise that
so great a trade cannot always proceed with equal profit, but upon it
the "livelihood of so many poore workmen and their families dependeth"
that they let the justices know that they have taken a course with
the merchants for the purchase of the cloths in the clothiers' hands,
and "we hereby require yo^u," they write, "to call before yo^u such
clothiers as yo^u shall thinke fitting and to deale effectually w^{th}
them for the imployment of such weavers, spinners and other persons as
are now out of worke. Where wee maye not omitt to let yo^u know that
as wee have imployed o^r best endeavo^{rs} in favo^r of the clothiers
both for the vent of their cloth and for moderation in the price of
wooll (of w^{ch} wee hope they shall speedily find the effects). Soe
may wee not indure that the cloathiers in that or any other countie
should att their pleasure and w^{th}out giving knowledge hereof unto
this Board, dismisse their workefoelkes, who being many in nomber and
most of them of the poorer sort are in such cases likely by their
clamo^{rs} to disturbe the quiet and governement of those parts
wherein they live. And if there shalbe found greater numbers of poore
people then the clothiers can reviue and imploy, Wee thinke it fitt
and accordingly require yo^u to take order for putting the statute in
execution, whereby there is provisione made in that behalfe by raising
of publicke stockes for the imployment of such in that trade as want
worke. Wherein if any clothier shall after sufficient warning refuse or
neglect to appeare before yo^u or otherwise shall obstinately denie to
yeeld to such overtures in this case as shalbe reasonable and iust,
yo^u shall take good bonds of them for refusing to appeare before us
and immediately certifie their names unto this board."
The Council also say the woolgrowers must sell their wool at a moderate
price, and finish up with the statement of the general principle on
which they act. "This being the rule," they say, "by w^{ch} both
the woolgrower, the cloathier and merchant must be governed. That
whosoever had a part of the gaine in profitable times since his Ma^{ty}
happie raigne must now in the decay of Trade ... beare a part of the
publicke losses as may best conduce to the good of the publicke and the
maintenance of the generall trade[330]."
[330] _Privy Council Register_, 9th Feb. 1621/2. The ten counties to
which this letter was sent are as follows:
Wilts.,
Somerset,
Dorset,
Devon,
York,
Gloucester,
Worcester,
Oxford,
Kent,
Suffolk.
This high-handed proceeding on the part of the Government might have
been successful if the slackness in trade had been of very short
duration. But in this case the crisis continued, and the employers were
soon in as bad a plight as their men. The Suffolk justices state that
in twelve towns out of two hundred the manufacturers have lost over
£30,000 by bankruptcies, and in twenty towns only have cloth unsold
worth £39,282. The employers cannot employ the men in clothmaking, but
the justices will do all they can to relieve the industrious poor[331].
The reply of the Gloucestershire justices is to much the same effect:
they add that the people begin to steal and many are starving. The
Judges of Assize also say they have interviewed the clothiers of
Gloucestershire, and have persuaded them to keep on their men for a
fortnight: they were utterly unable to do so for a month[332]. The
harvest of 1622 was again a failure and the distress increased. In
December the Council write to the justices of Suffolk and of Essex
concerning some "disquiet likely to happen ... amongst the poor sort of
people who wanting their usuall employm^t by reason of the badd vent
of new draperies w^{ch} gives them their onely meanes of maintenance
doe beginne to threaten unlawfull and disorderly courses to gett
reliefe." They request the justices to use their best endeavours to
maintain order and say that with "extraordinarie care" they have taken
a course for the relief of those suffering from extreme need. Early in
the year 1623 a series of relief measures were undertaken, possibly
in accordance with the "course" settled upon by the Council. Special
plans of selling corn to the poor under cost price were adopted, and
efforts were made to find work for the unemployed. We shall examine
the details of these reports later[333], and will now only notice that
they indicate a great improvement in the execution of the poor law;
they also record a good harvest for the early crops of 1623 and an
improvement in trade early in the year[334].
[331] _Cal. of State Papers_, April 28th, 1622, Vol. 128, No. 67; March
18th, 1622, Nos. 49 and 50. From Oxfordshire there is a like report.
The justices of Somerset state that the corn riots are now suppressed,
but that the want of work tends to mutiny. _Cal. of State Papers_, May
14th, 1622. The justices of Wilts reply that some of the clothiers
have dismissed their workpeople and there are now 8000 out of work;
some of them have attacked and seized corn on its way to market and
further outrages are feared. _Cal. of State Papers_, April 30th, 1622.
In consequence of this distress inquiry was ordered. A committee of
the Privy Council was appointed to find out the causes of the decay of
trade and to suggest remedies. Representative clothiers were to be sent
from every county to the Council, and the Merchant Adventurers were to
appoint some of their number to confer with the committee. In May it
was settled that if the Eastland merchants did not buy the cloths the
merchants might do so themselves, and in October an important committee
was appointed to consider the whole matter.
[332] _Privy Council Register_, 18th Dec. 1622.
[333] See Chapters XI., XII.
[334] Thus from Suffolk a whole series of reports record a vigilant
execution of the poor laws. In Hadleigh the justices say they have
done their best to set the poor to work (the "towne consisting onely
of clothinge"). At present (Mar. 18, 1622/3) and for a month past were
few shearmen, weavers, spinsters or other workfolk that could not have
sufficient work to employ themselves, but they do not know how long
this may continue ("the vent of cloth being so doubtfull"). _D. S. P._,
Jac. I., Vol. 142, No. 14, VI. In April we hear of the price of corn
abating. _D. S. P._, Jac. I., Vol. 143, No. 24.
This crisis of 1622 seems to mark a time of transition in the action
of the Privy Council with regard to the poor. The Orders in Council
were then more numerous and better enforced than those of any preceding
period, though they were only continued for a short space of time,
and seem to have ceased when the more pressing causes of disorder were
removed.
[Sidenote: 4. The action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to
the provision of corn.]
Between 1629 and 1644 the interference of the Council is not confined
to the years of scarcity but is continued for a long period of time.
There are every year important entries concerning the poor in the Privy
Council Register, and this fact seems to indicate that the attention
of the Privy Council was thoroughly aroused, and that there was a
determination to make the execution of the poor law a reality. The
years 1629 to 1631 like those of 1621 to 1623 were years of high-priced
corn and of a crisis in the cloth trade, and some of these Orders in
Council in 1629-31 are of the same character as those of 1622-3. In
1631 however the interference of the Council is better organised than
before and is continued until the outbreak of the Civil War. We will
first enumerate a few of the measures relating to grain.
The first proceeding of the Government was to forbid the transportation
of corn out of the country. In 1629 and 1631 proclamations were
issued to this effect[335]. In 1630 the export of beer also was
forbidden[336], so as to husband the barley as much as possible. The
restrictions were extended to Ireland, a survey was ordered of the
quantities of grain there, and it was found that there was a very good
harvest. Exportation to foreign countries was prohibited, licenses
already granted were revoked, and all corn not needed for Ireland was
to be brought to England[337].
[335] May 2nd, 1629, _Proc. Bk._, Chas. I., _D. S. P._, Vol. 541, p.
107. June 13th, 1631, Letters to Justices of England and Wales. _Privy
Council Register._
[336] _Privy Council Register_, Nov. 9th, 1630. Letter to the Lord
High Treasurer. "We understand ... yt the frequent exportacon of beere
beyond the seas doth ... increase the present dearth in the ... City.
We therefore require your lp. to give expresse order ... yt no beere be
caryed out of the kingdome."
[337] _Privy Council Reg._, 12th Nov. 1630, 9th June, 1630, 10th Sept.
1630.
At one time, moreover, an attempt was made to limit the export from
county to county and to regulate the supply by means of licenses.
Thus the bakers of London were to have the right of purchase for
twenty miles round the City; Bristol had special license to buy in
other markets and import by sea. Gloucester, Exeter, and London were
allowed to buy in Cornwall, Tewkesbury in Pembroke, Carmarthen and
Portsmouth in the Isle of Wight[338]. But this system of licensing
proved insufficient, and in April 1631 the justices of the home
counties received general orders to remember that the transport of corn
from one shire into another was not forbidden[339]. The Government
then recurred to the Books of Orders which were drawn up in 1587, and
had been re-enforced in every season of scarcity since that time. In
Sept. 1630 these orders were amended and reissued by Charles I.[340];
it is to this Book of Orders that the corn reports of the justices
refer[341]. These Orders we have seen work through the justices, and
require justices' reports. In fact they establish the organisation for
the provision of corn that was afterwards used for the relief of the
poor.
[338] _Privy Council Register_, 12th Nov. 1630, ff. 169, 181.
[339] _Ib._, April 2nd, f. 431.
[340] _Proc. Bk._, Chas. I., No. 134. _Privy Council Reg._, 9th Sept.
1630, f. 97.
[341] See Scarcity Reports of 1630, e.g. _Dom. S. P._ Chas. I., Vol.
176, Nos. 1, 18, 55, 57; Vol. 177, Nos. 31, 32, 43 etc.; Vol. 192, No.
19.
One other method of the central Government is perhaps worth noting.
Other laws connected with the poor were enforced, such as those
relating to the suppression of beggars and the labour laws. But these
times of famine were especially the times when inquiries were made
about enclosures. The enclosing of land necessarily excited opposition
when there was not corn enough. There were riots in Northampton and in
other places in 1607-8, and in 1631 "a large number of rebels" pulled
down fences in Braydon Forest[342]. A great inquiry was made into the
whole subject in 1609, and in 1631 also the justices return a few
special reports upon enclosures, and sometimes make their answer a part
of the report concerning the poor. In Appletree, Derby, very little
land had been lately enclosed "for that the greatest parte of this
hundred hath been enclosed long since[343]," but in other cases a few
new fences had been erected[344]. There is enough to show that even in
1631 enclosures continued to be made and continued to excite the old
opposition.
[342] _Cal. of State Papers_, June 10, 1631.
[343] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 185, No. 41.
[344] _D. S. P._, Vol. 192, Nos. 24, 93, 94.
Thus the Council in 1629-30 endeavoured to minimise the amount of
grain consumed, to secure a proper supply for the markets, and to see
that all laws designed to benefit the poor were rigorously enforced.
These measures are of much the same character as those of the sixteenth
century, but the orders are much more detailed and much stronger in the
parts designed to secure efficient administration. They were better
administered, and in the reports sent in by the justices we can see a
marked improvement, and signs that the organisation which broke down in
the sixteenth century was successful in the seventeenth.
[Sidenote: 5. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the
unemployed.]
But after 1629 the Orders of Council relate to many other methods of
relieving the poor. Some concern provision for the unemployed poor,
others deal with the Royal commission and Book of Orders of 1631, and
a few have reference to interference with wages undertaken by the
Government with the object of relieving distress.
The want of employment in the cloth-making counties again became a
serious difficulty at the beginning of the year 1629. It was partly
connected with political troubles; the merchants refused to pass their
goods through the Custom House in order to avoid paying exactions which
they regarded as illegal. The clothiers therefore could not sell their
cloths or continue to employ their workmen. Pressure on employers and
merchants was a not infrequent way of helping the poor. The Council
sent for the London merchants and thought they had persuaded them to
buy the unsold cloths[345], but apparently the merchants drew back;
in any case "divers merchant strangers and denizens" were summoned,
and on May 12th they are said to be "inclined" to buy the "bayes made
at Braintree, Bocking, and Coxall[346]." The privileges possessed by
the Merchant Adventurers for the export of cloth enabled the Council
to put especial pressure on the merchants when cloth was concerned.
The threat had only to be made that the trade would be thrown open
to foreign traders and the London merchants had to choose between
competition from rivals or the loss involved in buying the stocks
in the manufacturers' hands. In 1637 there was again depression in
the cloth trade, and again the Merchant Adventurers were told that
the trade would be thrown open if they did not buy the cloths[347].
Moreover one of the last acts connected with the poor enforced by
the personal government of Charles I. was of the same kind. At the
outbreak of the Civil War the clothing trade was the first to suffer,
clothmakers all over the country petitioned the king for help, and one
of the few resolutions of the Privy Council entered between 1640 and
1645 was that the cloth trade should be thrown open to relieve the
distress, and free license to export be allowed at those seaport towns
that remained faithful to the king[348].
[345] 10th May, 1629. _Privy Council Reg._ "The merchants have been
earnestly delt w^{th} ... to continue their wonted course in that
behalfe. And upon conference w^{th} the said marchants wee find them
inclined and plyable to his Mat'^s desire."
[346] _Privy Council Register_, 12th May, 1629.
[347] _Privy Council Register_, 26th April, 1637.
[348] _Ib._, 28th Feb., 1643/4.
[Sidenote: Relief of the unemployed cloth-workers.]
But this was only one of the methods in which the Council tried to
aid the makers of cloth. Special orders were sent to the justices of
Essex to cause adjoining parishes to help the districts where cloth
was made, because these parishes were more charged with poor than the
rest of the county[349]. Early in May, 1629, directions were given
to the Deputy-Lieutenants as well as to the justices of Essex and
Suffolk commanding them to see all possible measures were taken to
restore order and relieve the poor. It was especially stated that the
clothworkers were to be provided with work either in their own trade or
in some other good and honest labour, and if that were impossible they
were to be otherwise relieved[350].
[349] _Ib._, Entered 29th April, 1629.
[350] _Ib._, 5th May, 1629 f., No. 237.
Already the difficulty was not confined to the eastern counties, and
on May 17th, 1629, a proclamation was issued entitled, "A Proclamation
commanding the due execution of the Lawes made for setting the poore on
work." The regulations for "the reliefe of the indigent and impotent
poore, for binding out apprentices, for providing of stockes[351],
and for setting the poore on worke," were to be "duely and carefully
put in execution." The liability of the parish to provide funds, and
afterwards of the hundred and of the county is recapitulated, and
means are devised by which the duty may be performed. The "minister,
churchwardens and overseers for the poore" were straightway to meet and
take these matters into their consideration. They were then to report
to the justices of the peace. These latter were to consult together
in their several divisions, and at Quarter Sessions the necessary
arrangements were to be settled. The judges on their circuits were to
find out what had been done and were to make an exact report. Thus
the Central Authority set in motion the whole local machinery for
the execution of the poor law. The proclamation further ordered that
great care should be taken in those places where there either was or
should be any special occasion "to provide stocks to set the poor on
work[352]."
[351] The word "stockes" or stocks is here used in the sense of capital
for providing employment. We shall see that it was usual to raise a
lump sum of money for this purpose, almost always called the "stock" of
the parish. This was supposed to remain intact. Occasionally the word
stock was used for any capital sum possessed by the parish, but never
for the ordinary poor rates which were spent during the year.
[352] _Proclamation Book_, Chas. I., No. 109. Record Office, 17th May,
5 Chas. I.
[Sidenote: Special commands again to Suffolk and Essex.]
Some of the justices seem to have doubted whether they had legal power
to themselves levy a rate for providing employment for the poor. A few
days after the proclamation therefore a further letter is sent to the
Deputy-Lieutenants and justices of Essex and Suffolk stating that in
their part of the country there was special need for care in matters
concerning the poor, and therefore the writers again particularly
remind them of their duty and let them know "that it is the resolucon
of all the judges that by the lawe yo^u have sufficient power and ought
to raise meanes out of the severall parishes if they be of abilitie,
or otherwise in their defect in their severall hundrethes etc. to sett
the poore on worke and to relieve the aged and impotent not able to
worke[353]."
[353] _Privy Council Register_, 22nd May, 1629. See Appendix.
Another crisis of the same kind occurred in 1639 near the end of the
personal government of Charles I. The same methods are employed; it is
the western counties that are suffering most, and letters are written
to the justices of Devon and of Exeter urging them to make special
efforts to remove the more pressing necessities of the poor ordinarily
employed in the cloth trade[354].
[354] The Devonshire justices are told that people began to want
employment "w^{ch} in a short time may (if not prevented) breede
great inconveniences to the country." They in consultation with the
justices of Exeter were to "settle some good course whereby the poore
labouring people in generall may be provided of worke, and that in
particular those who more especially belong to the trade and busines of
cloathing." _Privy Council Register_, 13th April, 1639.
[Sidenote: Summary.]
Thus we see that during this period the Council put pressure on
merchants in order that manufacturers might give their men work; a
proclamation was drawn up by its advice giving strict orders for the
relief and employment of the poor all over the country; and it insisted
in several different ways that in the districts most affected work
should be found and relief given. We can see by the circumstances
of this crisis something of the nature of the difficulty which the
Stuart statesmen had to meet. The social organisation was based on the
assumption that the conditions were fairly stable; a poor man had the
greatest difficulty, as we have seen[355], in going from one part of
the country to another, and the apprenticeship laws were fitfully if
not rigorously enforced, so that, if a man's own trade failed, there
was little prospect of employment in another. In our own time a sudden
falling off in trade causes great hardship to the workmen, and in the
seventeenth century the hardship was thus far greater. The demand for
manufactured goods was essentially unstable; the social organisation
was based on an underlying assumption that work was stable. The
introduction of manufactures would therefore cause peculiar hardship to
the poor employed in them, if exceptional measures of this kind could
not be enforced.
[355] See Chap. VII.
There are several other references in the succeeding years which
refer chiefly or wholly to the action of the Council in enforcing
provision of work for the unemployed[356]. But after January 1631,
regulations of this kind formed part of the Book of Orders of that
date, and the Register of the Council, so far as it concerns the poor,
relates chiefly to the Royal commission, then just appointed, or to the
enforcement of the Book of Orders as a whole.
[356] 15th Feb., 1630/1. Rutland justices ordered to see the poor were
set to work. See Appendix.
31st March, 1631. Houses of Correction were to be erected in Herts.
without any more delay.
22nd April, 1631. J.P.'s of Middlesex and to those of Westminster.
Elsewhere much good had been done but they were negligent. Order them
to look after Houses of Correction and set vagabonds to work there.
31st March, 1631. Lord-Lieutenants commanded to see the poor were set
to work.
8th Jan., 1635-6. Several propositions for the employment of the poor
were referred to a committee, who were to give such order as was fit
for so good a work.
15th April, 1637. Inquiry into want of work at Godalming.
25th Aug. 1639. Inquiry into the grievances of the journeymen silk
weavers, who complain of slack work and lowered wages, f. 615. All
these are entered under their respective dates in the _Privy Council
Register_. We shall see when we consider the relief of the different
classes of poor in detail that there are evidences as to the result of
the Privy Council action on other occasions.
[Sidenote: 6. The Royal commission and Book of Orders as a whole.]
As early as June, 1630, a special committee of the Council itself had
been appointed commissioners for the poor[357], but in January in the
next year a further step was taken and a commission was issued to the
chief people in the country. The minutes of a few of its meetings
have been preserved, but these relate mainly to an inquiry into the
administration of Mr Kendrick's charity at Reading[358]. Its influence
seems to have been very considerable, but to have been exerted not so
much through the proceedings of the commission as a whole as through
the appointment of local committees, and through the delegation of its
powers for administrative purposes to various sub-committees. It had
the power to ask for the appointment of local commissions, and it was
in this way that it could most effectively deal with abuses in any
particular district. Thus if there was a complaint of great distress
or if charitable funds were not properly applied, a local commission
was suggested. Such commissions were granted for Bury, Exeter,
Colchester, for the parishes in and about London, and for Stamford in
county Lincoln[359], and would be a terror to evildoers in matters of
charitable endowments.
[357] In June 1630 the following Privy Councillors were appointed
"Commissioners for the Poore."
Lord Privy Seal.
Earl Marshall.
Earl of Bridgwater.
Earl of Danby.
Lord Viscount Wimbledon.
Lord Viscount Dorchester.
Lord Viscount Falkland.
Mr Trer.
Mr Vic. Chamb.
Mr Secre. Coke, "or anie foure of them."
The petition of Viscount Wimbledon is referred to them on 12th Nov.,
1630.
[358] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 213, dated Jan. 1631. This
volume is said to contain the minutes of the proceedings of the
Commissioners of the Poor, but after a few pages there are few entries
relating to the poor at all. There was an inquiry into the hospitals of
London and into Kenrick's charity at Reading, but little besides.
[359] _Privy Council Register_, Commissions for Exeter and Colchester
were issued 29th Feb., 1631/2, for Stamford 2nd July, 1632, f. 127,
for the London parishes 31st May, 1632. One for Bury had been issued
before 29th Feb. 1631/2, and further complaints were referred to its
members. All these commissions are stated to be issued in accordance
with the commission of the 5th Jan. 1630/1 for putting in execution the
"lawes for the reliefes of the poore," which authorised the granting of
commissions for inquiry into charitable trusts at the request of six of
the commissioners.
But the commissioners not only delegated their powers by means of local
commissions. For administrative purposes they divided themselves into
groups, each consisting of six or seven commissioners. One of these
sub-committees was attached to the counties of each circuit. Thus
Wentworth was amongst those especially responsible for the Northern
Circuit; Laud and Coke were assigned to that of Lincoln; Dorchester,
Falkland and Bridgwater to the district round Shropshire; Abbot, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and Wimbledon to Kent; the Earl of Holland to
Norfolk, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the west country[360].
This division would immensely increase the administrative usefulness
of the commissioners and was adopted immediately before the issue of
the Book of Orders. It was therefore most probably connected with the
system then established, and designed to enable the commissioners to
bring their influence to bear on the judges, and through them on every
justice in the county.
[360] Addit. MSS. British Museum, No. 12496, f. 282. This document
states that the commissioners were assigned to particular districts
in order that the business of the several counties might be more
thoroughly investigated. The distribution was made according to
circuits because the judges of each circuit were to receive the
justices' reports from the district and then to account to the
commissioners.
The Book of Orders was issued in January 1630/1. It is the most
important of the measures connected with the poor enforced by the
Privy Council. It was not the only document of the kind. We have seen
that a Book of Orders for the prevention of scarcity was issued in the
time of Queen Elizabeth, and was amended and re-issued in the reigns
of James and Charles. This method of issuing a Book of Orders was now
adopted for the relief of the poor at all times and not only in years
of scarcity.
The Orders begin by stating that many excellent laws were in existence
both for the relief of the poor and for the proper employment of
charitable endowments; these for a short time after the making of
the laws were duly executed, and that in some parts of the kingdom
"where some justices of the peace and other magistrates doe duely
and diligently execute the same, there evidently appeareth great
reformation, benefit, and safety to redound to the Commonwealth."
But they also inform us that in other parts of the realm there was
now great neglect, and that these orders were therefore necessary.
The orders and the directions were given separately; the directions
order the enforcement of the regulations of the statutes such as those
for the repression of beggary, the binding of apprentices, and the
provision of both work and relief. They especially command energy in
the matter within the jurisdictions of lords and at the Courts leet.
Only two of them impose new regulations. One orders that the Correction
houses in all counties should be made next to the gaol; the other has
especial reference to the time of scarcity; rates were to be raised
in every parish, and contributions were to be given by the richer
parishes to help the poorer ones, "especially from those places where
depopulations have beene, some good contribution to come for helpe of
other parishes."
Eight Orders precede the directions; they prescribe the method
of administration rather than what was to be administered, and it
was this that was most important. The justices of every shire were
to divide themselves so that certain of them were responsible for
particular hundreds. They were to hold monthly meetings and to meet
the constables, churchwardens, and overseers. From these they were
to inquire what measures they had taken in every parish and to hear
who were the offenders against the laws. The justices were to punish
neglect, and were themselves to report every three months to the
sheriff. The reports were to be sent on to the Judges of Assize, and
from them to the Lords Commissioners, some of whom, as we have seen,
were especially responsible for every circuit. The Judges of Assize
were particularly to inquire which justices were negligent[361] and to
make a report to the king.
[361] Addit. MSS. 12496, f. 243. The Orders and Directions, but not the
preamble, are printed by Eden. _State of the Poor_, Vol. i., p. 156.
It is not difficult to see that these Orders would greatly help the
general administration of the law. Some trouble was found in executing
them, but the Book of Orders formed the basis of the organisation for
the relief of the poor for the years between 1631 and 1640. In April,
1632, we are told that much good has been done, but there are now
signs of slackness. All the justices are to do their best and to make
certificates to the judges[362]. In October 1633 the returns had not
been so well made, and the judges were asked to find out what justices
were remiss[363]. In May 1635 a letter was sent to the judges stating
that many times they had received charge to see the Book of Orders put
in execution. Still in most places the justices have been exceedingly
negligent, and the judges are ordered to insist on their doing their
work and returning their certificates[364]. The effect of the Book
of Orders we shall be more easily able to estimate later, but we can
see from the entries made in these minutes of the Council itself how
energetically its members tried to see that their directions were
enforced.
[362] A minute of letters directed to "y^r high Sheriffe of y^e
severall countyes of England and Wales," _Privy Council Register_,
April 30th, 1632.
[363] _Privy Council Register_, 16th Oct., 1633.
[364] _Ib._, 7th May, 1635.
Many regulations were made about particular places in time of plague,
but to some extent this had been done in the reign of Elizabeth and
it is not a new development in the policy of the Council. It will be
sufficient to notice that frequent resolutions were passed on the
subject, particularly in 1636, 1637, and 1638, and that many of these
decisions take for granted a fairly efficient organisation for the
relief of the poor in ordinary times[365]. We shall have to consider
these measures more in detail when we examine the provision made for
the poor in time of sickness.[366]
[365] Thus on 25 Sept. 1636, a collection is ordered in the cities of
London and Westminster and in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey for
those affected with plague.
[366] On 30th May the Council order a collection for those stricken
with plague in Hadleigh, and also for the poor clothworkers who are out
of work and have no means of subsistence. Like collections were made
for Northampton 10th May, 1638, and for Gloucester 16th May, 1638, &c.
_Privy Council Register._
[Sidenote: 7. Interference of the Council with wages.]
There are also several examples of the interference of the Council
with wages with the object of relieving the poor. We have seen that in
1629 the cloth trade was depressed, and that the Lords of the Council
endeavoured to insist that work and relief should be provided for the
workmen out of employment. At the same time they also made efforts on
behalf of those who were still employed. In July, 1629, they wrote to
the Earl of Warwick and justices of Essex concerning the weavers of
baize in the neighbourhood of Bocking and Braintree. Wages were already
low, and the men hardly able to live by their labour, yet the employers
were trying to force their workmen to make a greater length of cloth
for the same wages. "Wee thinke it very fit and just," write the
members of the Council, "that they (the weavers) should receive such
payment for their worke as in reason ought to be given according to the
proportion thereof and also that the said Bayes which are woven in the
saide countie are to be made of one length[367]."
[367] _Privy Council Register_, 3rd July, 1629, Vol. 5, f. 399.
In February, 1631, the weavers of Sudbury complained; a petition to the
Council was presented on behalf of Sylva Harbert and others, saying the
"poore spinsters, weavers and combers of wooll" were "much abridged of
their former and usuall wages" by the clothiers, "who are now growne
rich by the labours of the said poore people." The matter was referred
to a committee with instructions to cause "orderly payment" to be made
of the "due and accustomed wages.... And in case any particular person
shalbe found either out of the hardnes of his harte towards the poore
or out of private end or humo^r refractory to such courses as the said
com^{rs} shall thinke reasonable and iust" he shall be ordered to
appear before the board[368].
[368] _Privy Council Register_, 16th Feb., 1630/1.
The employers stated that all of the trade had reduced wages, but that,
if a general rule were made binding on all the employers, they would be
willing to agree to give any wages which were thought reasonable[369].
A rate was fixed by an Order in Council, but the decision was not
obeyed. Lawsuits were brought by clothier against clothier, until
another attempt was made to settle the matter, and in 1636 Charles I.
issued Letters Patent fixing the length of the reel and ordering that
the wages of all the workpeople should be raised in proportion[370].
[369] _Cal. of State Papers_, 27th April, 1631, p. 22.
[370] Rymer, XX. 41.
It is evident, then, that in 1629 the masters of Braintree and Booking
were trying to take advantage of the competition of their workmen to
force down wages, and that in this particular trade both then and
afterwards the Council tried to prevent anything of the kind being done.
A bad harvest in 1629, followed by a worse in 1630, plunged not only
the clothworkers but the whole labouring class into distress. Amongst
many other measures calculated to relieve this scarcity the Council
again interfered with wages in order to aid the whole body of workmen.
Wages had been legally fixed by law in various ways since the middle
of the fourteenth century, and in 1563 it had been provided that
the justices of the peace should every year fix the scale of wages
according to the prices of food, and other conditions of the workmen.
It has been generally considered that these assessments were either
ineffectual or were enforced in the interest of the employers and not
that of the employed. But on September 29th, 1630, the Council ordered
four letters to be written, directed to the justices of the peace
of Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to the mayor of Norwich,
the contents of which clearly show that in this instance the Council
interfered with the object of helping the poor. The people themselves
had complained that the rates had not been properly made for them
according to law; the Council thereupon write down to the justices and
say that "these hard and necessitus tymes doe require some better care
to be had in that behalfe; we have therefore thought good at this time
to recommend the same to yo^r extraordinarie care. For the statutes
of 5 Eliz. and 1 Jac. having so carefully provided against these
inconveniences, it were a great shame if for want of due care in such
as are speciallie trusted with the execution of these lawes, the poore
should be pinched in theise times of scarcitie and dearth. And his
Mat^{ie} and this Board cannot but be exceeding sensible of any neglect
or omission which may occasion such evill effects, as are like to ensue
thereupon. And therefore since neither you nor any other can pretend
any want of legall power to have prevented all just cause of complainte
in this kinde wee doe hereby in his Mat^{ies} name will and require you
to use such care and diligence that his Mat^{ie} and this Board may
not be troubled with any complaint for want of due execution of the
aforesaid statute. And so etc.[371]"
[371] The text of the document and the substance of these paragraphs
have already appeared in _The English Historical Review_, January,
1898, p. 91.
The fact that the men complained and that the Council so promptly
interfered in this matter is a strong argument that both the workmen
and the members of the Council believed that the assessments were
enforced, or at least that they had a great influence on the wages
actually paid. The occurrence certainly shows us that in this instance
the assessments were ordered to be made in the interests not of the
masters but of the men, and that it was the intention of the Government
to protect the men from oppression. It suggests that the justices were
negligent, but it brings into prominence the fact that the justices
were supervised by the Privy Council.
There is reason for believing that the determination here shown by
the Council to help the poor had considerable weight in inducing the
justices to make the wages assessments of the time. It was probably an
immediate consequence of this letter that the Norwich justices drew
up a new assessment, and reported the fact to the Council in Dec.
1630[372]. Moreover a very large proportion of the other assessments
which have been preserved of the reigns of James and Charles belong
to the years of scarcity, when the relief of the poor was the main
object of the justices[373]. As money wages were rising throughout the
century, new assessments were always in favour of the workman and would
become most necessary in times when the price of food was high; they
would also most readily be made when the necessities of the poor were
great.
[372] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 176, No. 1, 1st Dec. 1630.
"And we have accordinge to the Statute appointed the wages of servants,
laborers and workemen at such Rates as will conveniently recompence
their paynes and yeld unto them competent maintenaunce."
[373] Wages assessments have been printed for Bury St Edmunds in
1630 (_The English Historical Review_, April 1897); for St Albans in
1631 (A. E. Gibbs, _Corporation Records of St Albans_, p. 281); for
Gloucester in 1632 (Thorold Rogers _History of Agriculture and Prices_,
Vol. VI., p. 694). One also exists for Hertford made in 1631, _Hist.
Man. Com. R._ XIV., App. viii., p. 160.
It is perhaps worth while to notice one other instance of protection
given to workmen by the Privy Council. During another time of trade
depression, in the year 1637, Thomas Reignolds, manufacturer, made
his workmen accept cloth instead of money for their wages. The men
complained; the Council found it was a second offence and ordered
Thomas Reignolds to be sent to the Fleet until he had paid his workmen
double the amount they had lost, and their charges for bringing the
complaint besides[374]. The punishment for truck inflicted by the Privy
Council during the personal government of Charles I. was certainly
severe.
[374] _Privy Council Register_, 10th May, 1637. On 17th May an order
was made for the release of Thomas Reignolds as he had then given the
weavers full satisfaction.
[Sidenote: 8. Summary.]
Thus in the period from 1597 to 1644 the Privy Council are increasingly
active on behalf of the poor, and during eleven of these years, from
1629 to 1640, they adopt a policy of constantly exerting influence to
secure the proper administration of the poor laws. This continuous
policy seems to be suggested by the exceptional measures which had
formerly been adopted in years of scarcity. In every season of
high-price corn since 1527 some action of this kind was taken, and
every exceptionally bad time of distress increased the extent of
governmental interference. The continuous policy adopted between 1629
and 1640 began with a failure of harvest and crisis in the cloth trade,
and the earlier methods of the Government were like those of 1597
and 1622. But while the season of scarcity still continued the Privy
Council issued the Book of Orders for the relief of the poor, and the
organisation begun by these commands was continued throughout the
period of personal government.
Abbot and Laud, Wentworth and Falkland, Dorchester and Wimbledon are
the members of the Privy Council whose names are most closely connected
with this policy. Its effects and success we shall be better able
to estimate later, but we can already see that the system which the
Privy Council tried to enforce was considerably more extensive than
any organisation of poor relief with which we are familiar. Already we
know that the poor were not only looked after in times of bad harvests,
as in the sixteenth century, but they were also sometimes employed
when they were out of work, and that, not only when an individual was
unfortunate, but when whole classes were suffering from a fluctuation
in trade. This certainly could not always be carried out, but the
Council insisted that it should be attempted. The personal government
of Charles I. has been more associated with the exaction of Ship
Money than with attempts to enforce a system which has much in common
with the socialistic schemes with which we are familiar on paper, and
yet these eleven years are remarkable for more continuous efforts
to enforce socialistic measures than has been made by the central
Government of any other great European country. Apart from its success
or failure the attempt is interesting, because it shows us the ideal of
government which was in the minds of Charles I. and his advisers, and
reminds us that these infringers of individual liberties were also, in
intention at least, the protectors of the poor.