1597-1644.
THE LOCAL MACHINERY FOR ADMINISTRATION.
1. Powers of the justices.
2. Work of the justices in first putting the law in execution.
(_a_) In West Riding in 1598.
(_b_) In North Riding from 1605 onwards.
3. Reports of the justices in response to the Book of Orders.
4. The work of the judges.
(_a_) Authoritative decisions on points of law.
(_b_) Administrative work as the link between the Privy Council and the justices.
5. The work of the overseers.
(_a_) In 1599.
(_b_) When stirred to greater activity by scarcity measures.
(_c_) After the issue of the Book of Orders.
The increased activity of the Privy Council, which made the poor
law of the seventeenth century more effective than that of the
sixteenth, depended for its success upon the activity of the local
officials, particularly of the justices of the peace and the municipal
authorities. We will now therefore examine the work done (1) by the
justices and town rulers, (2) by the judges[375], and (3) by the
overseers.
[375] Although the judges were not strictly speaking local authorities
so much of their work with regard to the poor law was done locally that
it seems more convenient to consider them in this connection.
[Sidenote: 1. Powers of the justices.]
We have seen, in the Elizabethan organisation of Norwich, how much the
justices and municipal officers could do when they were at their best,
but preambles, proclamations, and letters of the Privy Council combine
to tell us that continuous vigour and energy were exceptional. Still
the important point is that this local government existed, and under
pressure could become effective. It was because the organisation was
there that the letters of the Privy Council were so important; if the
justices had been powerless officials, Privy Council letters would have
been useless. It is because the justices had the power and could be
effective, that it is necessary for us to see how far the Privy Council
measures stirred them into action.
The Chancellor's charge in 1608 to the justices and judges throws some
light on the social position and importance of the justices, and also
shows that the Government thought it very necessary that their work
should be well done. The Chancellor complained that the justices who
did the work could have no place on the bench, and could hardly get
into the court "for the number of newe and younge knightes, that come
in there braueryes and stande there lyke an Idoll to be gazed vpon
and doe nothinge, ys so greate and pressinge for place countenaunce
and estimacyon." These young justices are reminded that "they are not
Justices for their countenaunce onelye." They and the other justices
are exhorted to "remember there oathes and dutyes that they are
for the Justice, peace and gouernemente of the cuntrye." They were
especially commanded to prevent vagrants from wandering; to see that
the proclamation and letters "for corne busynes" were enforced, and
that "y^e poore be prouyded for w^{th}in there paryshes." They were
also told that it was their duty to prevent all riotous assemblies at
the beginning, and that if there were disturbances they would be held
responsible[376]. This speech shows us that the Government thought
the peace of the country depended mainly upon the vigilance of the
justices, and that the office of justice of the peace was much coveted
because of the influence and respect it gave its possessor.
[376] _Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata_, John Hawarde, ed. W.
P. Baildon, p. 367-8.
[Sidenote: Powers of the justices under the Statutes.]
Under the provisions of the poor laws the justices had some duties for
the performance of which they were directly responsible, and others
in which they had to supervise the overseers and the constables. They
were directly responsible for the relief of maimed soldiers, for the
maintenance of Houses of Correction and for contributions to prisoners
and to such county hospitals as were in existence. They were further
the authorities who made the special assessments in time of plague and
levied the rates in aid of poorer parishes. To them were also referred
questions of settlement and other matters which concerned several
parishes. Moreover, although the overseers were primarily responsible
for setting the able-bodied poor to work, the justices sometimes levied
county rates for this purpose, and occasionally ordered that particular
people should be relieved from county funds.
But the hardest part of their duty in this matter consisted in the
proper supervision of the overseers. The names of the poor of each
parish had to be presented to them, and the assessments sanctioned by
them; it was their duty to examine the overseers' accounts and to see
that the pauper children were bound apprentices. Moreover, they had to
punish negligent officials, to coerce unwilling contributors, and to
listen to the appeals of aggrieved persons, whether they were injured
ratepayers or unrelieved poor.
[Sidenote: 2. Work of justices in first putting the law in execution.]
[Sidenote: (_a_) In the West Riding in 1598.]
The orders of the West Riding Sessions Rolls during 1598[377] give
us some idea of the difficulties of the justices in putting the
system into execution. The statute of 1597-8 was apparently the
first regulation of the kind generally administered in the West
Riding, but efforts were made to enforce this as soon as it came into
operation[378]. In June 1598 elaborate orders were drawn up for the
division of Knaresborough, which show us that the new methods met with
considerable opposition. The churchwardens and overseers presented the
names of the poor, but they said that all the parishes objected to pay
money. The inhabitants preferred to give "releefe" to beggars, and
some, they said, could help in this way who could not afford to pay
rates. The justices allowed the parishioners to have their own way to
some extent. They stipulated, however, that the poor should ask relief
of their fellow parishioners only, and that those who were able to
work should be set to work. Moreover, the occupiers who lived out of
the parish and the inhabitants who refused to give sufficiently were
to be assessed[379]. It was not only in Knaresborough that poor rates
were unpopular. Seven inhabitants of Tickhill refused to give the sum
assessed on them[380], while in Bentley and Arkesey an assessment was
duly made, but the money was not paid until the goods of many of the
inhabitants had been distrained[381].
[377] The _West Riding Sessions Rolls_ have been printed from 10th
Jan. 1597-8 to the 1st July, 1602, inclusive. The Roll for the year
1598 contains the orders made at the Sessions as well as the panels
and indictments, _West Riding Sessions Rolls_, Vol. III., Yorkshire
Archæological Association.
[378] April, 1598. "Ordered that the churchwardens and surveiors of
the poore within the parishe of Braiton shall see and take order that
Elizabethe Corker and her iiij^{or} children shalbe releeved and
provided for as the late statute requireth etc." _West Riding Sessions
Rolls_, p. 76.
[379] _West Riding Sessions Rolls_, pp. 84-86, June, 1598.
[380] _Ib._ p. 94.
[381] _Ib._ p. 97. The churchwardens and overseers of Wakefield in some
way failed to comply with the statute, although according to Arth's
pamphlet the poor there were sufficiently relieved. _Ib._ p. 118. See
Chap. VIII. _supra_.
This enforcement of local responsibility at first increased rather than
lessened the hardships endured by many of the poor. We are told that
"divers personnes are nowe sent forth of all partes of this realme to
the places of their births; wherof some of those personnes so sent have
bene inhabitinge and dwellinge in those places and townes from whence
they are sent by the space of twentie yeares, some more, some lesse."
This was done by the parochial officials in order that their own parish
might not be forced to support these poor people. They endeavoured
to shift the burden to the parish where the people were born, or to
get them sent as rogues to the House of Correction, where they would
be supported by the county. The justices of the West Riding tried to
prevent this unjust practice. No poor of the Knaresborough division
were to be sent to the place of their birth without special order from
some neighbouring justice of the peace. Moreover, the testimonials of
the poor passing through the division were to be examined, and when the
bearers were found to have lived more than three years in the parish
from which they were sent they were to return again. "For," say the
justices, "such kynde of personnes ... are not rooges nor wanderinge
beggers within the meanyng of the statute, but ought to be releived as
the poore of the parishe wher they so inhabited and wher they wrought
when they were able to worke[382]."
[382] _West Riding Sessions Rolls_, pp. 84, 85. Knaresborough Orders.
The Mayor of Doncaster seems to have been an offender in this respect;
a poor man named Gregorie Shawe had lived in Doncaster twenty years and
was in the Hospital, but he had been turned out and sent away. _Ib._
XXXI. p. 105.
The refusal of the inhabitants to pay rates and this illegal way in
which the parochial authorities attempted to get rid of the poor they
were now forced to maintain indicates that the first enforcement of
the new poor law caused considerable dissatisfaction[383]. These
difficulties bear out the conclusion that no earlier poor law had been
adequately put in force in this district. Now, however, the justices
insisted that more should be done, and occasionally they seem to have
been successful[384].
[383] Sometimes a parish was disobedient even when an order for relief
was made by the justices. Thus the parish of Silkston had been ordered
to pay vi^d weekly to John Michell of Gunthwaite towards the educating
of Mary and Elisabeth Michell. They had neglected to do so and were
therefore fined £3. 6_s._ 8_d._, while the churchwardens and overseers
were ordered to provide for the children "according to the last statute
in that case made and provided." _Ib._ p. 96.
[384] The following orders seem to show that regular relief funds could
be taken for granted. A poor succourless child was left in Ossett,
and Ossett was charged with many poor. The three townships of Ossett,
Dewisburie and Suthill were each to pay 16/8^d. for its support. _Ib._
p. 41.
A child came with its mother begging to Northowrom: the mother fell ill
and was carried by the constable to a poor man's house in Shelfe, where
she died. Northowrom was ordered to pay a shilling and Shelfe 4^d.
towards the relief of the child. _Ib._ p. 39. There are several other
orders of the kind. See p. 40.
[Sidenote: 2. (_b_) Work of the justices in first putting the poor law
in execution in the North Riding.]
The North Riding Records begin in 1605 and disclose a somewhat similar
state of things. The system of compulsory poor relief is evidently more
generally in operation. Vigilance in enforcing laws designed to prevent
the growth of a poor population is one of the signs that the poor
rates in a district are high, and in the North Riding much care was
taken to prevent the building of cottages without four acres of land,
and to punish landlords who took in lodgers[385]. Moreover, maimed
soldiers received pensions, the county hospitals were supported and
many orders were made for the relief of particular poor people[386].
A House of Correction was also built, though not until 1619, after
many resolutions had been passed on the subject[387]. On the other
hand, there is also evidence that the organisation did not yet work
smoothly. Overseers are constantly presented for neglecting their
duties, ratepayers for not paying their rates; sometimes even all the
overseers of a parish are presented for not making "cessments," or for
not relieving the poor[388], and in one case not only did the overseer
neglect to obey the justices' order for the relief of a particular poor
man, but the constable refused to obey the warrant for the apprehension
of the overseer[389]. If the justices' difficulties in Yorkshire are
typical of their difficulties elsewhere, it is not surprising that some
of them were negligent.
[385] Thus on April 14, 1607, Rob. Thompson was presented for building
a cottage or habitation for John Joye of Alne, labourer, now occupied
by the same, without assigning to it four acres of land &c., contrary
to the statute 31 Eliz. _North Riding Sessions Rolls_, Vol. I. p. 68.
Several cases of the same kind were presented at Richmond Oct. 8, 1607,
and they occur frequently throughout the North Riding Sessions Rolls
of our period until 1672, except from the period 1634 to 1647. _North
Riding Sessions Rolls_, vol. VI. 177, Oct. 8, 1672. See also pp. 28,
94, 99, 112 &c.
Like presentments were made for harbouring inmates or undersettles
(i.e. lodgers) until 1675, VI. p. 232, e.g. Oct. 8, 1607. Leon.
Marshall of Ravensworth "for keeping of an undersettle for the space of
a moneth &c. and also John Ramshawe, James Foster and Richard Dunn all
of the same: they were fined 10_s._ each." _Ib._ vol. I. p. 95.
[386] Thus there was a disputed liability with regard to Margery
Pearson, and she was to be relieved in accordance with the decision of
Sir Richard Etherington and Tho. Dearle, Esq., _Ib._ vol. I. p. 12.
Elizabeth Scotson of Melmerby is to be provided for by the High
Constable and the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, _Ib._ p.
97. See also pp. 115, 117, 124, 125 &c.
The Treasurer for the hospitals appears all through these records. In
1608 the payments made by Mr Brigges, Treasurer for the Langbaurgh
district, were as follows:--
£ _s._ _d._
The Hospitall juxta Malton 13 6 8 per ann.
Hospitall of Sharbrough 5 0 0
The Marshallsey 20 0
------------
Summa 19 6 8
------------
At the same time another treasurer for the district distributed
pensions to eleven soldiers amounting altogether to £28. 6_s._ 8_d._
_Quarter Sessions Records, North Riding_, vol. II. p. 257.
[387] _Quarter Sessions Records, North Riding_, Vol. I.
p. 75, 13th July, 1607. "It is ordered that there shalbe a House of
Correction at Thirske within the North ridding of the countie of Yorke."
p. 203. Oct. 2nd, 1610. "Two Houses of Correction shalbe builded
within the North Riding, whereof thone to be within the Liberties of
Richmondshire."
p. 225. April 26, 1611. House fixed upon but not yet used as a House of
Correction.
1612-19. Orders continue about the House of Correction the site of
which was sometimes arranged at Richmond and sometimes at Thirske.
p. 229. Jan. 8, 1619/20. The House was almost finished at Richmond and
the Governor was appointed.
p. 249. Oct. 1620. James Durham committed.
Vol. III. p. 134. Jan. 15th, 1621/2. £100 raised for stock. There are
many entries relating to committals in the succeeding years, vol. III.
pp. 39, 64 &c.
[388] April 29, 1606. Relief of Ellen Killington ordered by parish of
Boltby; the same order is repeated on July 10, pp. 38, 43. _Quarter
Sessions Records, North Riding_, p. 1. The following also were
presented:--
11th April, 1605. Michael Meeke, one of the Churchwardens of Kirkly
on the Wiske for not paying the sum due for lame soldiers and the
hospitals, p. 2.
p. 31. Richard Nicholson, of Topcliffe, for taking on himself the
office of Overseer and declined to fulfil the duties.
p. 99. "Rog. Ringrose of Aymonderly being one of the supervisours of
the poore for Appleton-in-the-Street A.D. 1600 for not having maid his
monethly accompt for the said office for that year and the like for the
years 1601 to 1607 both inclusive."
July 1611, p. 231. The Overseers of Kirklington for not relieving
their poor and exercising their office. Also the Overseers of Wath,
Burneston, Topcliff, West Garfeild and Condall.
Jan. 11, 1632/3. The Churchwardens and Overseers of Grinton for not
making cessments for the relief of their poor, etc., p. 345.
[389] April 11, 1621. _Quarter Sessions Records, North Riding_, vol.
III. p. 115.
[Sidenote: 3. Reports of the justices in response to the Book of
Orders.]
Between 1629 and 1631 there was a new development in consequence of
the frequent orders on behalf of the poor of those years. In each
period of scarcity the justices had been told to allot themselves to
particular divisions for the purpose of carrying out the special orders
sent by the Privy Council. The Book of Orders of January 1630/1 made
this a permanent arrangement so far as the relief of the poor was
concerned[390]. The justices of each particular division were to meet
monthly and examine the overseers and constables so as to see that
their duties with regard to the destitute were properly fulfilled.
[390] See Chapter VIII.
Not only were these orders made but we have evidence that they were
executed. The proclamation of 1629 and the Book of Orders of 1630/1
direct reports of the justices' proceedings to be sent to the Council.
About a thousand reports dealing with the ordinary relief of the poor
were received and are preserved among the State Papers. A few of them
relate to the proclamation of 1629 or to other special letters or
inquiries, but the majority are reports as to the execution of the Book
of Orders of 1630/1. Moreover, three hundred other documents concern
efforts to provide corn at reasonable prices for the poor. These latter
begin to arrive in October, 1630, and are numerous in December. The
series of reports on ordinary poor relief are exceptional in 1630, but
were received frequently in April and May, 1631. Both series of reports
were returned until 1633; after that date there are few corn reports,
but those dealing with the poor continue until 1639, when both cease
altogether[391]. A proclamation is issued in 1640, and, like that of
1629, orders the execution of the poor laws and the provision of stocks
for the employment of the poor; it also orders special inquiry by the
judges as to how far these orders were executed, and as to how far
they were successful[392]. But there are no more reports, and it seems
most probable that no more were sent. These documents thus relate to
the years 1630 to 1639, that is to the greater part of the period of
the personal government of Charles I. They exist in consequence of the
action of the Privy Council and form the chief evidence as to how far
that action was effectual.
[391] One letter in the form of a corn report and several reports
dealing with ordinary poor relief are printed in the Appendix.
[392] _Proclamation Book_, Chas. I., No. 228.
The details of these returns will have to be considered in every part
of our subject, and especially when we come to discuss the relief
given to the able-bodied poor. We will now only examine their general
character, partly in order that we may see what sort of work was done
by the justices acting under the special instructions of the Privy
Council, and partly that we may understand the kind of evidence which
is furnished by these documents. We have seen that the orders issued
by the Privy Council to the justices concerning the poor were similar
in form to those that had previously been issued concerning corn. The
reports sent in answer to them are also similar to the corn reports
of 1587. They are sometimes addressed to the Sheriff, often to the
judges of Assize, and occasionally directly to the Lords Commissioners
or Lords of the Privy Council[393]. The justices adopt many different
methods in making their returns. Occasionally they enclose the
reports of the overseers, or give a full abstract of them[394]. But
more usually the justices only state the general nature of their
doings, occasionally inserting details about particular assessments,
workhouses, or fresh methods of employing their poor. Incidentally they
frequently give us information as to the state of trade, the number of
recusants, the population, weights and measures, and the difficulties
in the way of administration[395].
[393] See Appendix XII. Reports B. E. and H. were sent first to the
sheriff, C. is sent to the Lords of the Privy Council, G. was delivered
to the judges of assize.
[394] See Appendix XII. B. F. G.
[395] See Appendix XII. D. E. F. New assessments and the increase of
assessments are frequently mentioned, e.g. _Dom. S. P._, Chas. I., vol.
192, 79; the fines of people who do not go to church in many others,
e.g. Hitchen and Broadwater, _D. S. P._, Chas. I., vol. 238, No. 42.
Other reports state whether there is employment in the cloth trade or
other occupations, e.g. _D. S. P._, vol. 190, 54. In this report the
justices of Babergh and Cosford report that the clothiers are on the
point of dismissing their workfolk. It is interesting also to learn
that on April 5, 1631, Portsmouth only had corn for 20 days "there
being resident w^{th}in the said Towne and Liberties therof six hundred
persons att the least." _D. S. P._, Chas. I., vol. 188.
There are one or two cases in which they give the minutes of their
meetings. One of these is sent by the justices of the Alton division of
Hampshire and will give us an idea of how these special meetings were
conducted. The Sheriff sent a letter and the Orders to these justices
on February 10th, 1631. They held their first meeting on March 12th,
and three others before May 1st, so that they seem very anxious to set
things in order[396].
[396] _D. S. P. Chas. I._, vol. 189, 66.
On March 12th from Fropfield John Godden was presented for "being
drunk on the Sabbath day," John Roake "for liveing idlye," and four
others for "useinge unlawfull games in tyme of eveninge prayer." Five
children were also placed apprentices. From Petersfield there were
three cases of a man being accused of "liveinge idly and mainteyninge
himself none knowes howe." Warrants were sent for some others for
"teareinge of hedges." Six were fined a shilling each "for beinge
absent from diuine service," and John Aylenge paid eighteenpence as he
was suspected of being drunk. Richard Wolgatt was presented for keeping
"a common alehouse w^{th}out lycence but noe process beinge made to
convict him; yt was prohibited." The children fit for service of this
place also were placed apprentices. Similar cases were settled for the
other places at the other meetings. But the most important part of
the proceedings for our purpose is the presentment of the constables
and churchwardens. The constables and tithingmen stated what rogues
had been punished in every tithing, "the churchwardens and overseers
of the poore made presentm^t of the nomber of theire impotent poore
in theire severall parishes, the nomber of theire able poore and howe
they are releived and the other sett to worke and of all other thinges
concerninge theire office." At the fourth meeting, held on April 30th
at Petersfield, the accounts of the churchwardens and overseers were
taken and new overseers appointed for the next year. Moreover, besides
all this "articles in writing" were given to the constables, tithingmen
and overseers of which they were to give an exact account at the next
meeting.
The report for the town of Cambridge gives perhaps even a better idea
of the work done by the justices but no details of cases. As we shall
have to refer so often to these justices' reports, it is worth while to
quote this one in full in order that we may have a clear idea of what
these documents were like.
To the right Ho^{le}: the Lords and others of his Ma^{ties}
most Ho^{le} privy Councell.
The certificate of the Maior, Aldermen and Justice of the peace
w^{th}in the Towne of Cambridge and the lib(er)ties thereof
concerninge his Ma^{ties} orders and direccons sent unto us in printed
bookes together w^{th} letters from yo^r Hono^{rs} for the due
puttinge in execucon such Lawes as tend to the releivinge of impotent
poore people, settinge to worke those that be able, and punishinge
those that be idle, and reformeinge of divers abuses and disorders
therein menconed.
Humbly sheweth,
1. That accordinge to the said orders and letters, we presentlie uppon
receipt thereof did assemble o^rselues together and calld before us
the High Constables, petty Constables, Churchwardens, and overseers
of the poore of o^r said Towne and gave them strictlie in charge for
the performance of the service therein required accordinge to the said
orders and direccons.
2. That we have ever since kept and continewed o^r weekely
meetings and there caused the said Constables dulie to make theire
presentm^{ts} and from tyme to tyme have strictly called them to
particular accompt concerninge the apprehendinge and punishinge of
rogues and vagabonds for disorderly tiplinge, useinge unlawfull games
and other misdemeanors in alehouses.
3. That we have caused the said Constables to see the watches and
wardes duly kept accordinge to lawe and to restrayne wandringe and
goeing aboute of beggers and alsoe for safety and good order.
4. That we have taken divers presentments of the said officers and
inflicted punishment accordinge to lawe of the offenders both for
drunknes for inordinate hauntinge of alehouses, for profanacon
of the Saboth by Carriers travellinge with packhorses and carts,
with butchers sellinge of meate, for profane swearinge and other
misdemeanors and have caused the penalties to be duly taken and
distributed accordinge to the lawe.
5. That we beinge exceedingly oppressed w^{th} poore since o^r last
heavy visitacon have taken order at o^r weekely meetings for the
competent releife of the impotent, by raiseinge and increasinge the
monthly rates in all o^r parishes to a treble and quadruple proportion
through o^r towne for to keepe them from begginge and wandringe aboute.
6. That we have caused the churchwardens and overseers of o^r severall
parishes to sett to worke all such poore as are able to worke
beinge of seaven yeares of age and upwards or to bynde them forth
apprentises. And for the better performance of theire duties therein
and whatt ells belongs to theire office we doe take of them a iust and
exact accompt the ffirst weeke in every month howe they dispose of
there monthly colleccon and other monies comeinge to there hands and
alsoe howe the impotent poore are provided for and releived and the
rest imployed and sett to worke and for punishment of such as are idle
or refuse to worke.
7. And as touchinge the Assize of bread and beare, as alsoe for
punishinge of bakers, bruers, ingrosers, forestallers and the like
(w^{ch} the governo^{rs} of the universitie clayme to belonge to them)
we leave to the vicechancelor and governers thereof accordinge to
there Charter of priviledge w^{ch} they challendge.
May 2^o 1631. SAMUEL SPALDYNG, Maior.
MARTIN PERSE.
RICHARD FOXTON.
EDWARD COPLEY.
JOHN WICKSTED.
ROBT. LUKYN.
THOMAS ATKINSON.
THO. PURCHAS.
JOHN SCHIREWOODE.
JOHN BADCOCKE[397].
[397] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., vol. 190, No. 13.
As the main part of our evidence depends on the justices' reports we
must determine whether the methods described in these returns are
typical of those employed all over the country or whether we have
reports only from the more energetic justices. Now we hear of some
instances of finding work for the unemployed from other sources[398].
If we possessed all the most favourable cases in our reports all or
most of these instances would be found amongst them. But this is
not the fact; some are reported and some are not. It is clear then
energetic administration of the law existed which was not mentioned in
the reports now preserved amongst the State Papers. We may therefore
conclude that the reports do not come only from vigorous administrators
but are fairly typical of the whole country.
[398] See note Chapter XII. for cases of employing the poor in counties
and towns where no justices' reports definitely report anything of the
kind.
The minutes of the meetings at Alton and the report of the justices
of Cambridge give us a good idea of the effect of the Orders and
Directions on the justices. In the first place they show us that a
number of meetings were held in consequence of the Book of Orders.
In some cases these meetings seem to have taken place every month
throughout the period from 1631 to 1639[399]; but from a report of
Lord Fairfax it appears that special inquiries into the requirements
of the Book of Orders were made only once a year in his part of
Yorkshire[400]. The meetings, even if they were only infrequent, must
have had a considerable influence in improving the execution of the
poor laws.
[399] _e.g._ Appendix XII. H.
[400] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 293, No. 129. Report from Ryedale,
July 1635.
On these occasions a number of offences were punished. Some were
connected with the relief of the poor because the fines exacted
were used for that purpose. Among these were such faults as playing
at unlawful games, getting drunk, swearing, the "profanacon of the
Saboth," and not going to church[401]. Other cases related to breaches
of the vagrancy laws and of that part of the poor law which placed upon
the overseers the duty of seeing that all who had not any means were
set to work[402].
[401] All these are mentioned in the above-mentioned reports from Alton
and Cambridge. The fines for not going to church were often regularly
exacted. In one report we are told that some of the accused were too
poor to pay and that others had compounded for recusancy, Vol. 300, No.
17.
[402] See Chapter VIII. See above, Alton and Cambridge. See also
Appendix XII. B. Westmill.
But the presentment of offenders was only a part of the duties to the
poor discharged at the meetings. Arrangements were made for binding
children apprentice, and pressure was exercised on the subordinate
poor law officials to properly perform their duties. The justices
found out how many poor were relieved and what each received, and they
inquired whether there was a stock for their employment[403]. They
also, when necessary, urged the increase of rates, the raising of a
new fund, or the provision of stores of corn to be sold to the poor
at lower prices. The whole system shows how much of the social side of
government depended upon the justices, and may perhaps induce us to
sympathise with the complaint of the gentlemen of Nottingham that they
have "little rest either att home or abroade[404]."
[403] The proceedings at these meetings closely resemble those at
Petty Sessions. If these meetings were identical with the ordinary
Petty Sessions, then these latter must have been held more frequently
in consequence of the Book of Orders. Many of the reports, like that
of Cambridge, expressly state that the meetings they report were
held because of the letters and orders of January 1631, _e.g._ see
Winchester, _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 188, No. 101.
[404] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 189, No. 42.
[Sidenote: 4 _a_. The work of the judges. Authoritative decisions on
points of law.]
The judges also were concerned in the administration of the system
of poor relief partly in the ordinary course of their duties, and
partly in consequence of the special action of the Privy Council. It
was the custom of the time to obtain interpretations of law from the
judges in reply to general questions and not only through the decision
of particular cases. These interpretations were given not only in
such cases as the imprisonment of Members of Parliament, but also in
matters affecting the poor law. A long list of resolutions was arrived
at on the statute of 1597-8 concerning the interpretation of that
statute[405]. Other questions arose later, and were decided in the
same way. Thus in 1620 there was a dispute in the town of Lydd which
led to the seizure of the bailiff's cattle and his retirement from the
magisterial Bench of his ungrateful town[406]. The query is submitted
as to the legality of a tax for the poor which was levied on the
inhabitants of a parish for their lands and goods in gross, and on the
farmers for their land per acre. Sir Robert Houghton and Sir Ranulph
Carew decided in its favour, and the paper is endorsed "The question of
taxing for the poor of Lydd decyded by the Judges of Assize[407]." We
have already seen that the Council told the justices of Suffolk that it
was the resolution of all the judges that they themselves might levy a
tax to employ the poor[408], and in 1633 also many decisions on points
of law were issued as the resolutions of the judges of assize[409].
[405] See Chapter VIII.
[406] _Dom. State Papers_, James I., Vol. 115, Nos. 98, 100.
[407] _Dom. Stat. Papers_, James I., Vol. 116, No. 51.
[408] See p. 154 _supra_.
[409] Michael Dalton, _The Countrey Justice_, ed. 1655, p. 115. The
resolutions are given in the form of answers to questions submitted
to the judges on particular points of law. They decided among other
things, that a man must take an apprentice if the justices so ordered
whether payment were made or not; that all the lands in the parish must
be rated equally, but that an extra sum might be levied from a man
"for his visible ability" within the parish; and also various points
concerning settlement. One question and answer are as follows:
_Qu._ If one who is under the age of 30 years and brought up in
husbandry or a maid servant, or brought up in any of the arts or trades
mentioned in the statute, 5 Eliz. cap. 4, and not enabled according
to that stat. to live at his or her own hand, shall be warned by two
justices of the peace to put him or her self in service by a day
prescribed by them, and shall not doe the same accordingly, but shall
after continue living at his or her own hand, what course shall be
taken with such a person and how punished?
_Resol._ Such persons being out of service, and not having visible
means of their own, to maintain themselves without their labour, and
refusing to serve as a hired servant, by the yeer, may be bound over to
the next Sessions or Assises, and to be of good behaviour in the mean
time, or may be sent to the house of correction. These resolutions of
the judges are quoted by Dalton as having great authority.
[Sidenote: 4 _b_. Administrative work as the link between the Privy
Council and the justices.]
But the duties of the judges of assize under the orders of the Privy
Council were much more important. They had to act as the link between
the central government and the county and municipal officials. They
were particularly ordered to let the Council know which justices did
their duty[410], and many of the reports were sent in to them. In March
1630 we hear that in Suffolk malting was prohibited in the interest
of the poor by the judges of assize in order to increase the supply
of barley[411]; a little earlier the Norwich authorities had great
difficulty in controlling the maltsters, but stated that with the
approbation of the judges they had arranged that no alehouse should
be licensed but such as entered into a recognisance by sureties to
sell two "thurdendeles" of beer for a penny[412]. The work done by the
judges is indicated by one or two references of this kind[413], and
since some of the later orders of the Privy Council were especially
directed to them it seems probable that they had a great deal of
influence in enforcing the orders of the Council.
[410] _Privy Council Register_, 16 Oct., 1633.
[411] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 187, No. 22.
[412] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 186, No. 16.
[413] In 1631 also a dispute about a poor rate in Marlborough was
referred to the Lords of the Council and was sent by them to the Lord
Chief Justice and judges of assize. _Privy Co. Reg._, 13th May, 1631.
[Sidenote: 5 _a_. The work of the overseers in 1599.]
The last authority who was responsible for the execution of the poor
law was the overseer. He it was who had to do the work, the function of
all the others was to make him do it. It was the duty of the overseers
to know all about the poor in their parish; to fix the amount of the
assessment and to levy it proportionately. They had also to provide
pensions and habitations for the impotent poor, to find masters for
apprentices and to procure work for the unemployed. The overseers'
accounts for Staplegrove in the county of Somerset in the year 1599
will show us something of their ordinary work. Payments were made by
twenty-two parishioners quarterly and by sixteen weekly, while two of
the inhabitants took charge of two impotent people. Ten poor people
received payment of a small sum every week on what we should now call
the outdoor relief system. Besides this money had been disbursed in
order to provide for a pauper's burial, to recompense tithingmen
for receiving the poor strangers that were brought to them, and to
purchase clothes and wood for the older poor and also outfits for
apprentices[414]. In this account there is nothing about setting the
poor to work, but the rest of the poor law seems to have been well
executed in 1599.
[414] See Appendix.
[Sidenote: 5 _b_. When stirred to greater activity by scarcity
measures.]
The kind of instruction given to the overseers when the justices were
stirred to greater activity than usual may be gathered from a paper in
the Tanner Manuscripts. It is entitled "A true copy of the charge given
to the overseers of every towne the 19 of December 1623," and must
refer to some particular county or some particular division. During the
early part of this year the price of corn was high and the justices
took many measures to provide for the poor. The sufferings of the
poor in the preceding winter may be the reason that the justices were
more strict in their supervision at this time. There are altogether
eight orders, one of which relates to alehouses; the constables and
overseers are ordered to see that the labourers and other poor are well
served with bread and beer, and that they do not linger longer than
is necessary for the delivery of the bread and beer. Another order
shows how very inquisitorial was the character of the Government of the
time: there was certainly no notion that the Englishman's house was his
castle. The overseers and one of the constables were twice every week
to search the houses of the labourers at night to see that all were at
home, and also to look out for any articles that the people might be
suspected of stealing. Several of the orders concern the keeping of the
poor at work[415]. Others arrange that children, not yet old enough to
be apprentices, should be taught to spin by some honest woman in the
town, who was to have a penny a week for each child until it could earn
something for itself. Beggars were to be punished, and provision of
fuel was to be made for the poor[416]. We can see how far removed this
system was from our own notions of liberty, and we can also see that if
the overseers performed these orders, they had even more reason than
the justices to complain of hard work. There is a great deal about the
provision of work and comparatively little about pensions, so that here
it seems likely that the overseers were more likely to provide for the
impotent without pressure than to find work for the unemployed. During
the years 1631 to 1640 we are often told that "articles" were delivered
to the overseers, and this document is not improbably typical of some
of them. For these are the kind of matters commented on by the justices
whenever they enter into details at all[417].
[415] See _supra_, p. 142.
[416] "A true coppy of the charge given to the overseers of every
towne," Dec. 19, 1623. Tanner MSS. LXXIII. II. f. 390.
[417] See justices' reports, Appendix XII.
[Sidenote: 5 _c_. After the issue of the Book of Orders.]
We have seen that in a few of the justices' returns the reports of the
overseers were enclosed. The justices of the Liberty of St Alban's sent
their answers in this manner. They were responsible for the parishes of
Chipping Barnet, East Barnet, Elstree and Northaw. In 1637 they still
held monthly meetings, and the overseers' accounts returned at them
will give us some idea of the work often done by overseers when they
were supervised in the special manner ordered in 1631 and continued
until 1640. At the January meeting of 1637 the justices gave "charge
that the presentments should be better and more fully certified[418]";
at the February meeting, therefore, fairly detailed reports were
returned from three of the four parishes[419]. At Chipping Barnet we
hear they have no Popish recusants or non-churchgoers. They have not
put forth any apprentice during the month, but are about to bind a
certain fatherless child. One of the magistrates undertook to see the
boy was bound before the next meeting. One family had apparently been
stricken with plague, and had been paid eight shillings before they
were shut up; eight weekly pensions were paid to impotent people, one
to a "Mad Tib," and two people receive payments for taking care of
children. The report also states that "we have in towe and yarne and
cloath xx^s and in money to buy more xx^s." From this account it is
clear that the poor were actually set to work in Chipping Barnet and
that not all the funds available for the purpose were utilised. From
Northaw the constables only report, but their return concerns poor
relief as well as vagrants. They say all the impotent poor are relieved
while the poor that can work are "sett on work and doe not refuse the
same." In this virtuous parish also none disorder themselves with
drinking or frequent alehouses during divine service on the Lord's
day and no idlers could be found though the constables had diligently
searched for them. From Elstree we have an account of the pensions paid
to certain poor people, and we have also the statements that "we have
in stocke for the poore remayning forty shillings," and "we set such on
worke as want uppon euery occasion." East Barnet makes no return, and a
warrant is sent for the overseers to answer the contempt. On April 9th,
1639, they send a report, and then relieve only one impotent person,
but have eight pounds in hand for setting the poor to work[420].
[418] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 344, No. 30.
[419] _Ib._, Vol. 347, No. 67.
[420] _Ib._, Vol. 418, No. 21.
If therefore we may take these reports as specimens of rural parishes,
we see that in each parish a stock existed for setting the poor to
work, and that there does not seem to have been any great difficulty
about the unemployed. The relief of the impotent and the apprenticing
of children appear to have been carefully looked after, and the
justices were prompt to notice any omission in the reports. We shall
see later that there is reason to believe that these parishes were not
exceptional, but that under the supervision of the justices the same
kind of measures were taken in many parts of southern England.
We have already seen that the central government, the Privy Council,
energetically tried to enforce the law, and that this increased energy
makes the seventeenth century the important period in England for
the poor law administration. We now see that in justices, judges and
overseers the local government existed through which the action of
the Privy Council could be made effectual. It is in this that England
differed from other European countries, particularly from France and
Scotland. We have drawn our information chiefly from the official
records of Privy Council, justices or overseers. We have noted examples
in the work of the justices and overseers in which the action of the
Privy Council did have a considerable effect. We have also seen that a
large body of evidence exists which will give us much information as
to the methods of relief employed, and may enable us to tell how far
the system was successful. We have now to see how this organisation
affected the poor, and how far it was generally enforced in all parts
of the country.
We will therefore cease to examine the system from the point of view of
the administrative machinery, and instead consider, first, the relief
which it afforded the various classes of poor, and secondly, the extent
to which the organisation, whose nature we have described, was employed
over the whole country.