METHODS OF RELIEF, 1597-1644 (_continued_).
B. _Ordinary Relief._
α. Impotent poor.
1. Almshouses and endowed charities.
(_a_) Old endowments which remained unchanged through the Reformation.
(_b_) Old endowments regranted to the Corporation or other public body.
(_c_) Fresh endowments.
(_d_) Pensions and gifts from endowed charities.
2. Provision for the old from compulsory rates.
(_a_) Relief from the county by pensions paid to soldiers and sailors
and by hospitals maintained by county funds.
(_b_) Relief from the parish by pensions paid to the destitute, by the
grant of a house, or by arrangements for free board and lodging in the
house of some parishioner.
β. Children.
3. Provision for children by apprenticeship.
(_a_) To masters. (_b_) To the masters of the Bridewells or industrial
schools of the time.
4. Schools for little children and orphanages.
γ. Able-bodied poor.
5. Relief given to prisoners.
6. Provision of funds to provide work for the unemployed.
7. Methods of providing work.
(_a_) Stocks used to employ the poor in their homes or elsewhere.
(_b_) Introduction of new trades.
(_c_) Workhouses and Jersey schools.
(_d_) Bridewells.
(_e_) Emigration.
(_f_) Pressure on employers.
(_g_) Advancement of capital without interest.
We have seen how the poor were relieved in times of special emergency;
we will now examine the kind of help that was bestowed upon those
classes of poor who in almost every community were more or less
constantly in need of assistance. We will notice first the relief
given to the impotent and aged poor; secondly, the measures adopted to
provide for destitute children; and lastly, the methods used to find
work for the unemployed or to suppress vagrants.
[Sidenote: α. The impotent poor.]
[Sidenote: 1. Almshouses and endowed charities.]
[Sidenote: _a._ Old endowments which remained unchanged through the
Reformation.]
The method of relieving the impotent poor differed very considerably
from that with which we are familiar. The workhouses of the seventeenth
century were mainly places for people who could work, the aged and
impotent poor were often relieved by almshouses controlled by public
and by private authorities, but founded and maintained by private
liberality. It was indeed an age in which almshouses or hospitals as
they were often called abounded. Probably there were nearly as many
in existence then as there are to-day, in spite of the fact that our
population has increased sixfold. Some of these hospitals were old
endowments that had survived the Reformation; others had been dissolved
with the other religious houses and regranted to the municipal
authorities of the place to which they belonged; many more were founded
during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I.
The well-known Hospital of St Cross at Winchester is a good example of
an old foundation that has had a continuous existence from its first
endowment in the middle ages until the present day. The modern tourist,
like the wayfarer of mediæval times, may partake of the refreshment
provided by its ancient regulations, and may still receive his bread
and beer like a seventeenth century beggar. But it has also been an
almshouse since the time of Henry II. By the Charter of Foundation
"thirteen poor men, feeble and so reduced in strength, that they can
scarcely, or not at all, support themselves without other aid, shall
remain in the same hospital constantly; to whom necessary clothing,
provided by the Prior of the Establishment, shall be given, and beds
fit for their infirmities; and daily a good loaf of wheaten bread
of the weight of five measures, three dishes at dinner and one for
supper, and drink in sufficient quantity[493]." This hospital was
not dissolved by Henry VIII. but continued under its old regulations
throughout the Reformation. Laud ordered inquiries to be made
concerning it shortly after 1627, and the thirteen pensioners were
then maintained with full allowances[494]. Many hospitals survived the
dissolution besides St Cross and remained in private hands; a few like
St Giles's, Hereford, or St Bartholomew's at Sandwich had been governed
by the town-rulers from the time of their foundation[495], and these
for the most part retained their old endowments and remained under
municipal management.
[493] _The Hospital of St Cross_, Rev. L. M. Humbert, p. 14.
Translation of the Charter of Foundation.
[494] _The Hospital of St Cross_, pp. 38 and 41 seq. There were then
belonging to the hospital besides the Master and 13 brethren, 12
out-brethren, 28 sisters and 2 probationers.
[495] See Chapter I.
[Sidenote: 1 _b_. Old endowments regranted to the Corporation or other
public body.]
Other hospitals were regranted to the Corporations of their respective
cities and towns soon after the dissolution in the same way as St
Bartholomew's had been given to the City of London. Such was the case
with St Bartholomew's of Gloucester. Queen Elizabeth stipulated that
some of the payments formerly made by the Crown should be remitted,
but placed the rest of the revenues in the hands of the Corporation on
condition that a physician and surgeon and forty poor people should be
there maintained[496]. Two other of the ancient hospitals of Gloucester
came into the hands of the Corporation. One of these, St Margaret's
Hospital, provided for ten poor men in 1562, and was then governed
by the town authorities; the other, St Mary Magdalen, was granted to
the city both by Queen Elizabeth and King James, and was called King
James's Hospital[497]. Even if a hospital came into private hands it
often returned to its original purpose. Sentiment as to its rightful
use was probably very strong in the case of any institution which
had been founded to do a work which obviously needed doing. Thus
Kineburgh's, another of the old hospitals of Gloucester, had been sold
at the dissolution to a Mr Thomas Bell, and was afterwards refounded
by him and placed under the care of the Corporation. His donation was
confirmed by Queen Elizabeth, and during the reign of James several
other small endowments were added by various donors for the maintenance
of the poor there[498].
[496] Rudder's _Gloucestershire_, p. 202.
[497] _Ib._, pp. 186-7.
[498] Rudder's _Gloucestershire_, p. 203.
Gloucester was perhaps especially fortunate in retaining so many of
its old endowments, but elsewhere similar arrangements were made.
St Giles's of Norwich, St Leonard's of Launceston, St Edmund's of
Gateshead, St Thomas's and St Catherine's of York, St Mary Magdalen's
of King's Lynn, and Trinity Hospital of Bristol were all old
foundations which, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, came
into the hands of the corporation of the town to which they severally
belong[499]. St Giles's Hospital of Norwich may be taken as an example
of these re-established hospitals. According to the Letters Patent of
Edward VI. it was granted to the Mayor and Corporation of Norwich, and
was to be called the House of God or the House of the Poor: forty men
and four matrons were to be provided for; they were to receive bed
and bed-clothes, bread, meat, drink and firing. The pensioners were
not appointed for life, but were removable from week to week or from
day to day[500]. This hospital therefore was very much like a modern
workhouse, except that it was supported by endowments or by voluntary
subscriptions.
[499] St Leonard's of Launceston is an interesting example of the way
in which the old hospitals for lepers came to be used for the poor.
Philip and Mary granted the hospital to the Corporation for the use of
leprous and infirm people.
James I. repeats this grant and adds that "for default of leprous
persons in the hospital aforesaid that it be and shall be lawful" for
the mayor and aldermen etc. to receive the rents for the support of the
poor. _Char. Com. Rep._ 32, Pt. 1, p. 406.
1610. King James I. refounded St Edmund's of Gateshead. Sykes's _Local
Records_, I. p. 84.
St Thomas's and St Catherine's, York, also came under the control of
the city. Drake's _Eboracum_, pp. 246, 247.
St Mary Magdalen, King's Lynn, was originally founded partly for
lepers; its revenues were taken away in the time of Edward VI., but a
few of the poor were maintained there by the Corporation. Its lands
were restored by James I. and it was placed under the care of the town
rulers. Mackerell, _Lynn Regis_, p. 194.
The property of Trinity Hospital, Bristol, since the time of Queen
Elizabeth has been conveyed in trust to members of the Corporation of
the city of Bristol. _Reports of the Charity Commissioners_, VI. p. 506.
[500] Letters Patent, 1 Edw. VI. No. 54. _Charters, Oaths and Charities
of the City of Norwich_, p. 50.
Occasionally these ancient charities came to be managed by the vestry.
Thus in Bristol there were three old endowments of this sort. Redcliffe
almshouse was supposed to have been established about 1440 by the
famous Bristol merchant William Canninge; the Temple Gate almshouse
and Burton's were probably foundations of an even earlier date. The
two former were governed by the vestry of St Mary, Redcliffe, and long
before 1821 had become simply houses in which aged paupers were placed
by the overseers[501]. Burton's almshouse was governed by the vestry
of St Thomas's parish, and was used as an almshouse from which paupers
were not excluded. These institutions had thus then become part of the
compulsory and legal system of poor relief rather than of the voluntary
charity which existed by its side.
[501] _Charity Com. Rep._ 7, pp. 204, 205, 234.
[Sidenote: 1 _c_. Fresh endowments.]
But not only were there many old foundations for helping the aged poor,
but the century from 1550 to 1650 was itself the great time of the
foundation of new almshouses. It is rare to find a town of any size
in which some institutions of this kind were not established during
these years, though in country parishes they were not so frequent. They
were governed in many different ways, but generally by some public
body or by some set of men closely connected with the authorities
who were responsible for the administration of poor-relief. Some
were governed by the Corporation like the small almshouse founded by
Fox at Beverley. Many resembled the Temple Hospital at Bristol; this
was endowed by Sir Thomas White and was vested in trustees who were
members of the Corporation. A few were managed by merchant or craft
companies associated with the government of the town; such was the case
with the Merchants' Hospital of Bristol and Dame Owen's almshouses
in Islington. Others were in the hands of private trustees sometimes
connected with the founder's family, at other times with his position.
The Archbishops of Canterbury were generally associated with some of
the favourite charities of the time. Grindal provided a stock for
setting the poor to work, Abbot a workhouse, Laud apprenticeship
endowments, and Whitgift an almshouse at Croydon for twenty-eight poor
people, the government of which he vested in his successors in the see
of Canterbury. These hospitals were usually filled by the aged and
impotent of the poorer classes. But occasionally they also supplied
the wants of the poor in a better social position. The Charterhouse of
Colonel Newcome fame was a foundation of the reign of King James, and
supplied a refuge for eighty poor gentlemen, merchants, soldiers, or
mariners.
Altogether the almshouses of the time formed a very important part of
the provision for the poor. In some towns like that of Hereford[502]
they were extremely numerous. Other places like Morton Hampstead seem
to have established a public almshouse for the poor, but as a rule
these institutions were privately endowed, and the help given by them
was thus free from the sting that is attached to legal and compulsory
charity.
[502] There were endowments for at least ten almshouses in Hereford in
1642.
I. St Ethelbert's, an old foundation for ten poor people in the hands
of the Cathedral authorities.
II. Sick Man's Hospital. A foundation partly managed by the Corporation
and partly by the Vestry.
III. St Giles's, an old endowment in the hands of the Corporation.
IV, V, VI. Kerry's, Williams', and Price's Hospitals, endowed during
the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., and governed by the Corporation.
VII. Lingen almshouses founded 1609. }
}
VIII. Coningsby Hospital founded 1617 for eleven old soldiers, }Under
mariners, or serving men. }private
}management.
IX. Mary Price's almshouses, 1636, for six poor widows or single }
women. }
X. Weaver's almshouses, 1641. Under management of parochial authorities
of All Saints'. _Charity Commissioners' Rep._ 32, Pt. II., pp. 6-56.
[Sidenote: 1 _d_. Pensions and gifts from endowed charities.]
But besides the almshouses many other charities were founded to help
the aged poor, some of which have proved of doubtful benefit to their
successors. Many pensions and gifts of small amount were distributed by
public or semi-public bodies. The City Companies of London frequently
received bequests of this kind. Thus the Clothworkers administer the
gift of Sir Thomas Trevor. In 1622 he bequeathed £100 in order that six
poor women might have 20s. a piece in quarterly instalments. At Bristol
every week some one poor widow receives 10_s._ from Mr Whitson's
charity, and two poor householders have 20_s._ each, though neither
widow nor householder can have the gift more than once in the same
year[503].
[503] _Rep._ VI., pp. 253 and 495.
Innumerable smaller charities also exist in particular towns and
parishes ordering the distribution of sixpences and shillings on
particular Sundays or Feasts, or after the hearing of some sermon. Even
more frequently bread charities were established. Thus in Hereford
Cathedral twelve poor people receive a loaf every Saturday, and
sixpence on twelve of the principal feasts and vigils of the year[504].
Sometimes so many poor men or women are "apparelled," or gowns, shirts
and smocks are bought and distributed: more often fuel and wood are
provided[505]. Bequests of this kind are very numerous, but the amount
of relief afforded to each individual is often ridiculously small.
Still the value of money was three or four times greater then than
it is to-day, and a pension of 10_s._ or 20_s._ was a much greater
contribution towards the maintenance of the poor person. Moreover,
parochial authorities and officials of City Companies had comparatively
few people to deal with, and it was possible for them to know something
about the recipients of these charitable doles.
[504] _Ib._ 32, Pt. II., p. 11.
[505] Numerous examples of these bequests occur in the Reports of the
Charity Commissioners. The following may serve as specimens of the
charities of this kind existing in a single parish.
_In St Giles, Reading._ _Char. Com. Report_, 32, pt. I., pp. 131, 132.
_Clothing._ Augustine Knapp, 1602, gave to the churchwardens 20_s._ a
year for ever to be bestowed for the clothing of poor, lame, blind and
impotent people in the parish.
1625. Richard Shaile gave £10 upon trust to buy yearly three shirts
and three smocks worth 2_s._ 6_d._ a piece for three poor aged men and
three poor aged women, chosen by the churchwarden. This gift was lost
before 1688.
_Bread._ 1606. Thos. Deane gave an annual rent of £3 to be bestowed
yearly in good, wholesome, well sized bread and given to the poor
of the town in St Giles's churchyard as might be settled by the
churchwardens and overseers of the poor. The bread was to be given as
follows: yearly upon Christmas Eve, 20 dozen of bread: upon Good Friday
another 20 dozen, and upon Ascension Eve another 20 dozen.
1623. Rich. Aldworth gave another gift of £3 a year for the same
purpose, to be distributed at the same times.
_Money._ In 1614 A. Humphrey Champion had given a gift of £10, the
interest of which was given to poor people. Now lost.
Altogether the number of endowed charities which afforded assistance to
old people was large in the seventeenth century in comparison with the
number of persons who were in need of relief. Moreover, new almshouses
were continually founded throughout this period and until the close
of the century. Probably many of these are in existence to-day, but
there has been no increase at all proportionate to the growth of the
population, while a few of the old institutions like the Redcliffe
almshouse at Bristol have become part of the legal system of relief
while others have disappeared altogether[506].
[506] There is an almshouse in St Just not now occupied. See _Rep._
32, Pt. I., p. 438. In Gloucester also almshouses were founded by a Mr
Hill, Mr Keylock, Mr Pater, and Alderman Thomas Semys. The two last
were in existence in 1643, but are not now distinguishable. Rudder's
_Gloucestershire_, p. 204.
[Sidenote: 2. Provision for the old from compulsory rates.]
[Sidenote: 2 _a_. Relief provided by county funds.]
But although the aged poor were largely relieved by almshouses there
were still many who were provided for by the legal and compulsory
system. Some hospitals were supported by the county funds. There were
several in the North Riding of Yorkshire which were used as almshouses
for the impotent and aged poor and received grants from the County
Treasurer[507].
[507] Sums were paid out of the county funds of the North Riding to
hospitals at New Malton, Old Malton, and Scarborough. _Quarter Sessions
Records, North Riding_, Vol. I. p. 43, Vol. II. p. 183. In 1618/9 New
Malton hospital was dissolved, and pensions were then allotted to the
old and impotent poor there. _Ib._ Jan. 7th, 1618/9.
Aged soldiers and sailors were also provided for not by the parish but
by the county. As we should expect this was found to be a heavy charge
in Devonshire, and the magistrates grumbled at the amount they had to
give for this purpose[508].
[508] _Quarter Sessions from Queen Eliz. to Queen Anne._ A. Hamilton,
p. 17.
[Sidenote: 2 _b_. Relief of the aged by means of pensions from the
parish or by the provisions of houses or free board and lodging.]
More often the aged poor were relieved by the funds raised by the
parish. Two methods seem to have been adopted. The most usual was
what we should now call a system of out-relief. Pensions were granted
varying in amount from threepence to two shillings a week, but
generally about one shilling[509]. Sometimes in addition rent was paid
and often habitations were provided which were built by the overseers
on the waste[510]. But the poor in these were not under any special
control but were allowed to look after themselves in other respects. In
some parishes, however, instead of receiving weekly pensions the poor
were billeted on the rich. In a report from the district of Furness
and Cartmell, one hundred and seventy-six people were relieved in
this manner, and two hundred and eighty-eight by means of pensions.
In this case each parish adopted one method or the other exclusively;
thus in Alythwaite thirty-nine poor were billeted, in Coniston twelve
were provided for by money payments[511]. In other cases the method
of billeting existed as an exceptional practice side by side with the
pension system. Thus in Staplegrove, Somerset, in 1599, after the list
of payments given for the poor, there are the names of two men, each of
whom kept a poor impotent person in his house[512].
[509] See Appendix VII., and also the overseers' returns from East
Barnet and Elstree in 1639, and from Chipping Barnet and Elstree in
Feb. 1636/7. _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 347, No. 67, and Vol.
418, No. 21.
[510] In the North Riding, at Quarter Sessions orders were frequently
made for the building of houses for particular poor people. Thus in the
Court held April 17th and 18th, 1610, the overseers and churchwardens
of Bagby were commanded "to find or provide Alice Cooke, being a poore
widowe, of a house." _Quarter Sessions Records, North Riding_, Vol. I.
p. 189. On July 20, 1619, also an order was made that the churchwardens
and overseers of Startforth shall provide a convenient dwelling house
for Ellen Winter before Michaelmas. At the same court the overseers of
Easbie were told to collect 82_s._ 10_d._ from various townships in
order to pay for a house for two poor men which had been already built
by order of the justices. _Ib._ Vol. II. p. 211. Like orders continued
to be made through the reign of Charles I. and under the Commonwealth.
_Ib._ Vol. V. pp. 62, 255.
[511] _Dom. S. P._ Chas. I., Vol. 330, No. 90.
[512] See Appendix VII.
The parochial system of the time was therefore mainly a system of
out-relief and sometimes free lodging, but it was modified by a
practice of "boarding out" the aged. It was of considerably less
importance than it is to-day because the amount of endowed charities
bore a much greater proportion to the number of old who were to be
relieved.
[Sidenote: β. Children.]
[Sidenote: 3 _a_. Apprenticeship to masters.]
We will now consider the main methods of providing for the young.
Compulsory education does not seem to be peculiar to the nineteenth
century. In the reign of Charles I. all children had to be taught to
work and trained to a trade. The method chiefly employed was that of
apprenticeship. But schools, training homes and orphanages also existed
in which children received the technical education of the time. Parents
were obliged to apprentice their children or put them into service
as soon as they were old enough. If the parents were able they paid
the preliminary fee themselves; if not, the parish found masters for
the children, but in this case they often had to work at the more
unskilled trades. Sometimes money was paid for the pauper apprentice
as for any other child, but at other times men were forced to keep
the children without payment. There was often, as we should expect,
a great deal of friction in the matter. In a report from Yorkshire,
signed by Lord Fairfax, we are told that the justices do their best
to find masters and keep the children with them, but that there was
considerable difficulty in so doing[513]. Elsewhere there are also
hints that the masters wished to free themselves from any burden of
the kind[514], but there is much to make us think that on the whole
the method at this time worked well. It was apparently the favourite
remedy for the time for the evils of poverty. The writers of the
legal handbooks insist that it was an especially important part of
the duty of overseers[515], while throughout the seventeenth century
numerous bequests for the purpose were left by private persons[516].
This is very strong evidence that the philanthropists of the time
thought that the binding of poor children apprentice was an excellent
way of providing for their maintenance and training. Laud himself was
especially interested in the matter. In his own lifetime he made a
gift for the purpose of apprenticing ten poor boys of Reading[517],
and either during his lifetime or by his will he also provided funds
for the same object in Croydon, Wokingham, Henley, Wallingford, and
New Windsor[518]. Moreover the Privy Council appear to have specially
enforced this part of the relief of the poor and to have demanded and
received more detailed reports on this subject than on any other. This
action of the Privy Council and the number of these bequests therefore
make us believe that the evils of pauper apprenticeship were not very
prominent in the seventeenth century. No doubt the fact that it was
then the usual custom for an apprentice to board with his master and
not a practice chiefly confined to children brought up by charity, made
a great difference. Both kinds of apprentices were bound in the same
way and would tend to be dealt with in the same manner. The selection
of the master would make the principal difference; and the welfare of
the apprentice would depend upon the care taken by the administrators
of the charities and the parochial funds in providing masters for the
children.
[513] _D. S. P._ Chas. I., Vol. 293, No. 129.
[514] _Ib._ Vol. 190, No. 56.
[515] Dalton's _Country Justice_, 4th edition, 1630, p. 93. See Chapter
VIII.
[516] Among such bequests were:--
Bristol, Edw. Cox, 1622. _Reports of the Char. Com._ VI. pp. 532-533.
" Andrew Barker, 1658. _Ib._ p. 467.
Oxford, Thomas' Charity, 1639. _Ib._ p. 381.
Exeter, Sir John Acland, 1609. _Reports of Char. Com._ p. 155.
Maidenhead, Rixman's Charity, 1628. _Ib._ XXXII. Pt. 1, p. 77.
At Reading besides Laud's gift there were John Johnson's Charity, 1614,
and Marten's Charity, 1635. _Ib._ p. 43. Both these were in existence
in 1652, but have been lost for many years.
Wokingham, Laud's Gift and Planner's Charity, 1605. _Ib._ p. 213.
Hereford, Wood's Charity, 7 James I. _Ib._ Pt. 2, p. 29.
West Wickham, Lady Slaney, 1607, £3 a year. _Rep._ VI. p. 271.
[517] _Records of the Borough of Reading_, Vol. III. pp. 512, 513. In
1640 £100 was paid for half the year and ten boys were appointed to
be bound apprentices with such masters as the Mayor and aldermen had
arranged, £10 being paid apiece for them.
[518] _Reports of Char. Com._ XXXII. Part 1, 221.
The picture in the _Fortunes of Nigel_ of Jenkin Vincent, the London
apprentice of this time brought up at Christ's Hospital, could not have
been very unlike the reality. Great hardship must have been inflicted
in some cases[519], but when the practice was new and the custom
general, the apprentice bound by charitable funds would not usually be
treated much worse than other apprentices. Otherwise it is not probable
the Privy Councillors in their public capacity, and an Archbishop and
many other charitable people in their private capacities, would have
taken so much trouble to extend this practice by finding the funds for
the purpose of thus providing for the maintenance and education of poor
children.
[519] In the Records of the Borough of Reading between 1630 and 1640
we have an instance of complaint by a pauper apprentice. We are told
that "At this daye complaynt was made by the officers of Shinfeild that
heretofore they gave v li in money and bound John Chaplen, borne in
their parishe, apprentice to William Applebye of Readinge, weaver, for
15 yeares by indenture, of whiche terme 9 yeares are expired, and that
the said apprentice for lacke of meate and drinke and apparell hath
often-tymes run awaye, and is nowe brought agayne by the officers of
Shinfeild desiringe a reformacion or restitucion of the v li.
"William Appleby saith he hath victualls as he himself and family daily
have, and further saith that the said apprentice is soe ill-condicioned
that he will still run awaye and hath noe hope of good service of him.
"All thinges heard, examyned and understood the said William Appleby
was enjoyned to take his apprentice and to sett him to worke agayne and
to use him well in all thinges.
"And the apprentice willed, when he is misused or ill treated to
complayne to Mr Mayour, and he will provide further for him, as shalbe
fitt and expedient in that behaulf." _Records of the Borough of
Reading_, Vol. III., p. 233.
The poor boys of Reading appear to have been regularly placed as
apprentices, sometimes by charitable funds and sometimes by the
overseers.
[Sidenote: 3 _b_. In the bridewells, or Industrial schools of the time.]
But not all destitute children were bound apprentice to masters in the
town. The bridewells or workhouses of the time had often a special
children's department which seems to correspond with our own Industrial
schools.
The London Bridewell had thus two distinct functions to perform. On the
one side it was a House of Correction, on the other it was a technical
school for young people. Sometimes the orphaned sons of freemen were
received there, at other times children were sent by the overseers of
the parishes, and often young vagrants were brought in from the London
streets. They were trained in very various occupations: a full report
of the hospital was drawn up in 1631, and we are then told that "four
silk weavers keep poore children taken from the streets or otherwise
distressed, to the number of forty-five."
There were also more than a hundred others at that time in the
Hospital who were apprenticed to pinmakers, ribbon weavers,
hempdressers, linen weavers, and carpenters[520]. Christ's Hospital
at Ipswich, the Hospital at Reading, and the Nottingham House of
Correction, had all training departments of this kind in which many of
the poor children of these towns were taught trades.
[520] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 190. 10. See Appendix XII.
[Sidenote: 4. Schools for little children and orphanages.]
Besides all this, children who were too young to be apprenticed were
in many places taught to spin and sometimes to read and write. We have
seen that in Norwich in every parish "a select woman" was appointed for
this purpose in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and in 1630 a similar
order was made to the effect "that a knittinge schooledame shalbe
provided in every parishe where there is not one already, to sett
children and other poore on worke[521]." Even in the hamlets like those
of Whitwell and Sellside, in the county of Westmoreland, three poor
boys were maintained at the school by the parish who were to be taught
trades as soon as they were old enough[522]. In Hertfordshire we are
told that many had been placed as apprentices "and such as are not of
fitt yeares to bee put forth wee haue caused to bee sett to spinning
and such smale worke as is most meete for them according to the
tendernesse of their age that idlenesse may not fasten in them[523]."
[521] _Norwich Court Books._ 18th October, 1630.
[522] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 388, No. 7, XXXVIII. 2.
[523] _Ib._ Vol. 189. 79.
These schools were not improbably very numerous. In documents
containing the instructions of justices to overseers knitting schools
were advocated. Thus in directions issued in 1622 by some of the
justices of Norfolk for the hundreds of Eynesford and South Erpingham,
the justices resolve "that poore children be put to schoole to
knittinge and spinninge dames and the churchwardens and ouerseers for
the poore to paie the schoole dames their wages where the parents are
not able[524]."
[524] British Museum Add. MSS. No. 12496, f. 222. In another document
containing instructions by justices to overseers the establishment of
knitting schools is advocated. See above, p. 181.
All this points to a system of popular education of the kind then
approved.
In the largest towns orphanages also were established about this
time. Christ's Hospital in London, as we have seen, was originally
established for the little children of the London streets. During this
period there were from seven to nine hundred children maintained at
the cost of this institution, some in London and some at nurse in the
country[525]. At Bristol there were two establishments of the same
kind. Queen Elizabeth's Hospital was founded by a citizen named John
Carr after the model of Christ's Hospital in London. The boys were
subject to the same regulations and still wear the same blue and yellow
dress[526]. The Red Maid's School was endowed by the will of John
Whitson in 1621. It was to consist of a matron and forty girls. The
children were to learn to read and sew and do such other work as the
matron and the Mayor's wife should approve. They were to be apprenticed
for eight years, to wear clothes of red cloth, and attend on the wives
of the Mayor and aldermen on state occasions[527]. In Plymouth, Exeter,
and Norwich also there were similar institutions, but they seem to have
only existed in the large towns. Both in the country and towns orphaned
and deserted children were generally "boarded out" until they were old
enough to be apprenticed, and payments were made for them from the
rates amounting to about a shilling a week.
[525] Reports of the four Royal Hospitals, 1632, 1641. King's
_Pamphlets_, 669 f. 4.
[526] Probate of John Carr's will was granted in 1586. An Act of
Parliament confirming the foundation was passed 39 Eliz. The school
was established on the site of Gaunt's Hospital, and the citizens of
Bristol provided some of the necessary money. _Char. Com. Rep._ VI. p.
463 seq.
[527] _Char. Com. Rep._ VI. p. 490.
Children were thus very well provided for, and their training was
considered a matter of national concern. Parents, whether they were
very poor or not, were compelled to send their children to work or
school and either to apprentice them or to find situations for them. We
are apt to consider popular education an exclusively modern movement,
but in this, as in many other matters, the aims of the seventeenth
century anticipate those of the nineteenth. They had ideas which
were very different from those of to-day as to the kind of training
which was necessary, but they attached an equal importance to the
necessity of training. The Town Council of Norwich and the justices of
Hertfordshire and Norfolk took energetic action in the matter.
[Sidenote: γ. The able-bodied poor.]
[Sidenote: 5. Relief given to prisoners.]
We will now see how the administration of the time affected the
able-bodied poor. The help given to the unemployed is by far the most
important part of this relief, but some aid was also given to prisoners.
The prisoners of the sixteenth century must have suffered great
hardships. No adequate means seem to have existed for their
maintenance. Their friends supported them, and under certain
regulations they were allowed to beg. Several statutes made in the
reign of Elizabeth provided partially for their support as part
of the relief of the poor[528]. By the statute of 1601 prisoners
were to be relieved by a county rate. The County Treasurer, who was
responsible for the relief of soldiers and hospitals, also disbursed
a part of the funds to them, and every county was bound to pay at
least twenty shillings a year to the prisoners of the King's Bench and
Marshalsea[529]. Still the help given was very small; up to 1650 the
allowance granted to the poor in the Norfolk prison was only a penny a
day[530], and this sum could barely have sufficed to keep them alive.
In Devonshire their allowance was increased in 1608 because "divers of
them of late have perished through want"[531]. We must remember that
incarceration in these prisons was the fate of debtors. Charitable
people tried to help these people, and bequests were often made for the
purpose of granting them some assistance. Thus in the reign of Charles
I. George White of Bristol left a gift of five pounds a year to be
used for the purpose of freeing or relieving some of the prisoners in
the Bristol Newgate, and there are many other bequests of the same
kind[532]. Still the amount of these legacies was wholly insufficient
for the need. Certainly neither the legislators nor the administrators
of the reigns of the earlier Stuarts made the criminal poor more
comfortable than the unfortunate poor. If we realise the condition of
the prisoners of this time we can understand why Houses of Correction
were regarded as charitable foundations. We can also see how it was
that whipping and stocking were so frequently inflicted and that they
were comparatively merciful punishments.
[528] 14 Eliz. c. 5; 39 Eliz. c. 3.
[529] 43 Eliz. c. 2.
[530] _Orders of the Norfolk Quarter Sessions_, 1650.
[531] _Quarter Sessions from Queen Elizabeth to Queen Anne_, p. 91. A.
H. A. Hamilton.
[532] _Char. Com. Rep._, VI. p. 529.
Richard Holworthy also in 1640 left £20 for the poor in the Bristol
Newgate.
At Oxford, Wardell in 1625 and Myles Windsor both left the profits of a
small sum for the poor in Bocardo. _Rep._ VI., p. 403, 404.
At Launceston by Connock's charity in 1611 a rent of 52_s._ a year was
set apart for the poor felons in the county gaol. _Rep._ 32. 1, p. 406.
Bequests in London for this purpose were very frequent. _Rep._ VI. p.
302. Sir T. Bennett in 1616 left £24 a year for redeeming twelve or
more poor debtors.
[Sidenote: 6. Provision of funds to provide work for the unemployed.]
But the provision for the unemployed workmen is by far the most
characteristic part of the early seventeenth century administration.
A man who was unemployed and had no resources had either to beg or to
steal. If he begged, he was whipped; if he stole, he went to one of
the terrible prisons of the time. The bands of armed vagrants, who
made themselves terrible by their numbers and defied the law, were
therefore only a natural consequence of the social conditions of the
period. Repressive measures were tried but did not succeed because
force could not restrain a man from begging if that was his only means
of escaping starvation. The provision of work which had been made for
the unemployed before 1597 was quite inadequate, and it remained for
the earlier Stuarts to develope and extend the system.
We will examine first some of the methods of raising funds which now
came to be utilised, and secondly a few of the various plans adopted in
different places at different times with the object of employing the
poor.
It is characteristic of the time that the money was frequently
provided by private people. At Guildford Archbishop Abbot founded a
workhouse, and we are told that the poor men of the town were employed
to spin flax and hemp into cloth, and that this was found to be a
"great comfort to many poore workefolke men, women and children[533]".
[533] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 191, 42.
At New Windsor several sums of money were left for this purpose. One
of these was bequeathed by Andrew Windsor in a will dated 1621. He
bequeathed £200, the annual interest from which amounted to fourteen
pounds. With this the poor were to be set to work in the making of
cloth. To some extent the donor's intentions were fulfilled up to the
present century. During the eighteenth century and up to 1829 the money
was expended in setting the poor to work to spin sheeting[534].
[534] _Rep. Char. Com._, XXXII. Pt. 1, p. 100.
Other legacies left at New Windsor for this purpose were as follows:--
Mathias Jenis £20 "towards a stock for the setting of poor people of
Windsor on work or to purchase some parcel of land for their relief."
B. Chert gave a similar sum for the same purposes. _Rep._ XXXII. 1, p.
98.
There were many other gifts of the same kind, but of some no farther
trace has been found, while others are employed for a somewhat
different purpose[535].
[535] Other charities of the same kind were those of
Lawrence Atwill, Exeter, 1588, £600. _Rep._ VI. p. 136.
George White, Bristol, 10 Chas. I., £100. _Rep._ VI. p. 530.
Aldworth, Bristol, 1634, £1000 towards the setting of poor people on
work. _Char. Com. Rep._ VIII. p. 58.
Atwell's gift. A lost charity of Wolverhampton. _Rep._ V. 593.
Croydon. Henry Smith gave £1000 in 1624, subject to certain
trusts, which was partly to be used for this purpose. _Bibliotheca
Topographica_, II. p. 79.
Hereford. Francis Pember, 1632, left money which in 1635 was assigned
by his executors to be used for setting poor children to work.
_Report_, XXII. ii. p. 39.
Besides these voluntary contributions the finding of work for the
unemployed was still in some cases regarded mainly as a municipal
duty. Thus at Richmond in Yorkshire before 1631 the money for this
purpose had been provided from the town chest, and about the same time
a contribution was requested but not obtained from the Corporation of
Wells[536].
[536] _Dom. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 189, 65, and Vol. 194, 19.
Usually however the funds were provided by means of parochial
rates. A lump sum was raised called the "stock." This was expended
in purchasing materials and implements, and ought to have been
continuously replaced when the finished products were sold. A "stock"
was thus obtained in the three parishes of Beverley; each parish
contributed six or seven pounds, besides the amount they formerly had,
and the poor were employed in spinning hemp[537].
[537] _Dom. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 189, 8. X. A detailed assessment for
the raising of a stock and relief of the poor was made in Norwich in
1644. See Appendix.
It was usually in these three ways that the money was raised for the
purpose of finding work for the unemployed, but many different methods
were used in the administration.
[Sidenote: 7 _a_. Stocks used to employ the poor in their houses or
elsewhere.]
We will now examine some of the more typical cases of setting the poor
to work. Generally we hear that stocks were raised and the poor found
with work, but we do not hear that the work was done in any public
building. It does not follow that a building was not used, but we do
not hear that one was provided. We will first notice a few instances in
which the poor were set to work in this way, and we will then examine
some of the Jersey schools and the workhouses and Houses of Correction
of the period. Lastly, we will endeavour to see what expedients were
adopted by public or semi-public authorities to provide the poor with
work without directly employing them. Under this head we will notice
such expedients as emigration, putting pressure on employers, and the
various ways in which a young artisan or tradesman was helped to set up
in business for himself.
We shall see later that all these expedients were adopted much more
often after 1631 than before it, and it is at that date that our
information is most complete. About that time we hear of several
ways in which the poor were employed directly or indirectly by the
public authorities, but in which we are not told of the erection
of a workhouse or other building of the kind. In Winchester, for
instance, the stock was placed in a clothier's hands; at Maidstone
"the towne doth ymploy poore women and their children in spinning,
making of buttons and twisting of threed for the same." In two of the
hundreds[538] of Shropshire "the poore of euery paryshe w^{th}in the
said hundreds are sufficiently provided for and are not permitted to
wander or beg but are set to worke on husbandry as the state of the
countrey doth require."
[538] _Ib._ Chas. I., Vol. 188, 101; Vol. 186, 74; Vol. 194, 17. IV.
All these and many other instances are reported in 1631, but there
are examples at other times. At Norwich many plans were tried[539],
but in 1625 it was resolved that the stone-mines should be used for
that purpose. The workmen were to be "sett on worke" the next Monday
at eight o'clock and surveyors were ordered to be present. "And the
Belman ys required to warne all such as want worke and dwell not in
infected howses to repaire thither at that hower w^{th} barrowes and
fittinge tooles to digg stone & they shall be compounded w^{th}all for
reasonable wages[540]."
[539] In Dec. 1630 a certain "Nathaniell Crotch was appointed to sett
the poore on worke in the Newhall," and certain aldermen were appointed
to overlook the work done. _Court Books, Norwich_, 23 Dec. 1630.
[540] _Court Books, Norwich_, 3rd Nov. 1625, f. 72. Other plans were
even then contemplated at Norwich, and on Nov. 16th people were
appointed in every ward to "sett the poore on worke."
At King's Lynn also different expedients were adopted. As early as 1581
money had been spent in changing St James's Church into a workhouse,
and shortly afterwards we have evidence of employment being then given
to the poor. In 1623 the building was pulled down, and possibly in
consequence of this we find an agreement made in that year between
the citizens on the one side and a merchant taylor, a glover and a
woolchapman on the other. These last undertook not only to teach
children to spin worsted yarn, but also to give employment to the poor,
and to pay proper wages to those who were not learners. In June, 1631,
the Mayor and the Recorder sent in a report to the Sheriff, in which
they said that then they had "bought materialls to sett the able-bodyed
poore on worke not suffering to o^r knowledge anie poore to stragle and
begg upp and downe the streets of this Burgh[541]." In Lynn, therefore,
the authorities on several occasions made energetic efforts to find
employment for those out of work, and very possibly some arrangement
of this sort was in continuous operation from the year 1581.
[541] _Hist. Mun. Com. Report_, XI. App. III. p. 247; _D. S. P._, Chas.
I., Vol. 195, 46.
[Sidenote: 7 _b_. Introduction of new trades.]
Sometimes the authorities utilised the labour of their poor in order
to establish a new trade. Thus in eight of the towns of Hertfordshire
public funds were obtained for an unsuccessful attempt to employ
those out of work in making serges and baize, then called the "new
drapery[542]." A project of the same kind was suggested to the justices
of Pembrokeshire, but they were very cautious about committing
themselves to its adoption[543].
[542] _Cal. of State Papers_, May 10th, 1620.
[543] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 192, 70 and 71.
Our informants generally tell us only that stocks were raised and the
poor set to work. But from the instances we have just examined we can
see that many kinds of employment were used. On the whole clothmaking
and the provision of flax, hemp and tow were the most usual expedients.
[Sidenote: 7 _c_. Workhouses and Jersey schools.]
But both private employers and public officials found that if
the very poor took work into their homes they might embezzle the
materials. Moreover, the seventeenth century administrators often
carefully provided for the training of workers, and this could be more
conveniently done in some building. We, therefore, hear of the erection
of workhouses and Jersey schools and the continued use of Houses of
Correction. At Newbury and Reading institutions of this kind were
founded by Mr Kendrick. At Newbury we are told threescore persons were
employed in the trade of clothing and other manufactures, most of these
"being houskeepers and havinge wyfes and children depending upon their
labours." Besides this fifty households were set to work by spinning
for the workhouse, and a "stock" was raised by taxation to be partly
expended "to imploie the poore in worke[544]."
[544] _Ib._ Vol. 192, 14 II.
We have detailed accounts of the Sheffield corporation. From these we
find that they spent about two hundred pounds in building a workhouse
and providing the necessary materials. The details of the construction
were very carefully planned; the carpenters were sent to Newark to see
the workhouse there and every item of expenditure is set down in the
accounts[545].
[545] _Extracts from the Earliest Book of Accounts of Sheffield._
Entries from 1628 onwards. By J. D. Leader.
At Taunton and Abingdon similar institutions seem to have been
established in consequence of the special activity of the years after
1630. The Taunton workhouse was newly built in May 1631, and some
children and others who were able to work were already sent there to
be trained in labour[546]. In June also in 1631 the Mayor of Abingdon
reports that "wee haue erected w^{th}in our borough a workehouse to
sett poore people to worke[547]."
[546] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 192, 65.
[547] _Ib._ 195, 7.
At Cambridge the workhouse was also a House of Correction. In 1628
many houses had already been built for the benefit and employment of
the poorer sort of people, and in that year Hobson gave the town the
site without Barnwell Gate on condition that a more convenient place
should be erected. This was soon afterwards begun, and was partially
paid for by certain sums, which had been sent to the town for the
plague-stricken poor in 1631, and which after that time remained in the
hands of the Corporation. In 1675 Hobson's workhouse was still not only
a House of Correction but a place where five combers could be employed
if they wanted work, and where all the poor people of the town that
desired to have work in spinning and weaving were to be provided with
employment and to be paid the usual wages[548].
[548] Cooper's _Annals of Cambridge_, Vol. III., pp. 204 seqq. and 569,
570.
In these cases the workhouses are all in large towns, but in one
country district there were small institutions of the kind in the
parishes. The justices responsible for Little Holland in Lincolnshire
report in 1635 that in "all our seuerall parishes wee haue a Towne
stocke with a workhouse, a master and utensills and that there hath
beene aboue two hundred poore people sett on worke and imployed weekly
by the officers[549]."
[549] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 315, No. 99.
Workhouses were thus fairly numerous and varied greatly in size. They
were not then like a modern workhouse, but were places where people
who could work were sent that they might be trained and employed.
They were, too, municipal or parochial institutions, whereas Houses
of Correction were not parochial, but were either municipal or county
undertakings.
[Sidenote: 7 _d_. Bridewells.]
In the sixteenth century we have seen that the distinction between
the two was not very great, but in this period the new Houses of
Correction are much more like gaols. This is especially the case with
those erected by public funds, those which were privately endowed
still retained much of their old character. London, Bristol, Norwich,
Gloucester and many other places had organised their Bridewells either
before or during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and we have already
noticed that there were four Houses of Correction in Devonshire in
1598[550]. If was during the early part of the seventeenth century
however that Houses of Correction appear to have been established
in every county. They formed a necessary part of the system of the
time. You could not provide work and maintenance for everybody unless
you had some arrangement for coercing idlers. A great many of these
institutions appear to have been established or revived after 1597. In
1598 one was founded at Liverpool, and in 1601 some measures of the
same kind were taken in Nottingham and in Kendal, Westmoreland[551].
[550] The Barnstaple workhouse was in existence soon afterwards. 1607.
"Paid for erecting and placing the stoope in the house of Correction,
18_d._" 1633-1640, "Paid to John Locke who is appointed to the charge
of the Workhouse for two journeys here, 10_s._ 10_d._" _North Devon
Herald_, Aug. 19th, 1880, and Aug. 12th, 1880.
[551] _Selections from the Municipal Archives of Liverpool_, Picton,
June 24th, 1598. "It was agreed by all the assembly that a house termed
a 'House of Correction' shoulde be had and taken for the poore people
aforesaid," and it was further arranged that Mr More should let his
house at Poole for that purpose at a reasonable rent.
For Nottingham, see _Nottingham Records_, Vol. IV., p. 225. In 1601 it
was arranged that John Cooper should remain keeper of St John. He was
to take up rogues and punish those committed to him, though at the same
time he was to have an allowance for the poor infants and others which
were sent to him.
Kendal, A.D. 1601. There is a list of collectors of benevolences for
the House of Correction. _Hist. Man. Com. Rep._ X. App. IV., p. 299.
Others were erected shortly after the statute of 1610 was passed:
thus in 1614 the City of London consented to help the counties of
Middlesex and Surrey to build Houses of Correction: about the same time
the Nottingham burgesses furnished and reorganised St John's Hospital
for this purpose, and both Preston and Manchester had followed the
same example before 1620[552]. In the reports of 1630 to 1639 the
existence of Houses of Correction is assumed, since the justices state
how many idlers have been sent to them[553]. Sometimes the reports
give a few details concerning them; at Hastings the justices tell us
they have kept their House of Correction in good repair[554], and from
the justices of Edwinstree and Odsey in 1631 we learn that a House
of Correction had been long maintained at Buntingford, and that the
justices send their prisoners there although there is a more important
institution of the kind in the county, fourteen miles distant[555].
The justices' reports thus indicate that Houses of Correction were
established in most places before 1635. This impression is confirmed by
a letter from the Earl of Pembroke to the justices of South Wiltshire.
He complains that there is no place of the kind nearer than Devizes,
and he asks the Council to enforce his request that another should be
built in Wiltshire[556]. This letter would hardly have been written
unless in 1623 it was usual for Houses of Correction to be nearer than
Devizes is to South Wiltshire, and seems therefore to show that they
were now a general institution.
[552] May 19, 1615. "The company decide to raise 40 marks for
furnishing St John's and for setting the poor there to work."
_Nottingham Records_, Vol. IV., p. 331.
June 21, 1615. An agreement was made with John Kirby. He agrees
to "diligently teach, instructe and bringe upp all such youthes,
children and other persons as shalbe sent or committed into the saied
Howse of Correccon in some honest and true labour soe longe as they
shall remayne there vnder his chardge and government and shall fynde
and allowe vnto them convenient meate, drynke, apparell and other
necessaries vnlesse they bee lame and impotent and nott able to worke."
For Manchester and Preston see Earwaker, _Constables' Accounts_, Vol.
I., pp. 39, 54 and 65.
[553] _D. S. P._, Chas. I. Vol. 349, 72, Hayridge etc. Devon. _Ib._
Vol. 349, 12, Hartesmere, Suffolk. _Ib._ 192, 79, Blofield, Norfolk.
_Ib._ Vol. 250, 42, Arundel, Hants. _Ib._ Vol. 426, 67, Bastable and
Becontree, Essex, &c. The justices of Somerset write "It was presented
to us that many persons lived out of service w^{th}in certayne parishes
whome wee sent to the Howse of Correccon at Shepton Mallet," _Ib._
Vol. 194, 20. At Chichester it is reported that "there is a house of
Correccon neere the common prison in the said Cittie w^{ch} is parcell
of the said provision and that such prisoners as are thether committed
are employed to worke duringe the tyme of their restraynt. _Ib._ Vol.
190, 67.
[554] _Ib._ Vol. 188, 34.
[555] _Ib._ Vol. 189, 13. Eight years later this house at Buntingford
was still in existence and reported to be doing much good in the
country. _Ib._ Vol. 426, 73. July, 1639.
[556] _Cal. of State Papers_, May 15, 1623.
Their character seems to have been much the same as in the preceding
century. They provided a temporary lodging for stranger vagrants and
a house of detention in which the idlers and offenders convicted for
small causes could be made to work hard and were possibly reformed.
Coarse kinds of labour were used at the London Bridewell, mainly the
beating of hemp, but sometimes other plans were tried and the prisoners
were put under the care of undertakers who agreed to keep them all at
work and made such profit as they were able[557].
[557] _Remembrancia_, II. 254.
But there were many other ways in which the unemployed were provided
for. The modern remedy of emigration was adopted, pressure was put upon
employers and there were various ways in which money could be lent to
set a young householder up in business.
[Sidenote: 7 _e_. Emigration.]
It was about this time, and partly in connection with Bridewell,
that the remedy offered by emigration was adopted. It was the age in
which several of our colonies were founded and first developed. The
earliest vagrant emigrants were sent to Virginia. We hear of a payment
of 12_s._ 3_d._ from a London parish "towards the transportacon of a
hundred children to Virginia by the Lord Maior's appointment," in 1617
and in 1619[558]. Again, in 1622 and 1635, vagrants were detained in
Bridewell for Virginia, who were usually paid for by municipal funds
and collections, though in a few cases we are told that the parochial
officials sent particular people and paid their expenses. A few years
later some vagabonds were sent to sea, and others were put to work in
the Barbadoes[559]. The emigrants did not come only from London; three
boys of Barnstaple departed in 1633-4, and probably there were many
more both from Barnstaple and other places. The emigrants thus sent
out were bound apprentice for some years to some employer, and at the
end of their term of years they were to have the opportunity of making
plantations for themselves. There is a declaration made in 1647, by
the Earl of Carlisle, who was Lord of the Caribee Islands, in which it
is stated that there was not land enough in Barbados for all who had
served their time[560], and that every freeman unprovided with land may
have a grant in his other island of Antigua.
[558] W. A. Bewes, _Church Briefs_, p. 96, 1617, quoting the Records of
St Alphage, London Wall.
[559] Court Books of Bridewell, Feb. 24th, 1619. Sixteen vagrants are
entered as "sent to Virginia," and entries of the same kind follow at
the next meetings.
1622. Vagrants are again "kept for Virginia."
April 1635. It is ordered "that if Mr George Whitmore and the Treasurer
shall think fit to send any vagrants beyond seas, what reasonable
they shall consent unto shall be allowed." At the same meeting some
parishioners agreed to pay for a certain inhabitant of their parish to
go beyond seas.
At the meetings held later in the month on April 15th and 29th several
people are destined for Virginia and others for the Barbadoes.
Other entries occur in 1639.
The names of all these vagrants are given, and the descendants of
several of them occupy good positions in America. An enterprising
American has endeavoured to enlighten his countrymen on the subject,
but the publication of names is now forbidden as the descendants did
not care to be enlightened.
[560] A declaration of the Lord of the Caribee Islands touching
servants who had served their time and could not get land. _King's
Pamphlets_, British Museum, 669 f. 11, f. 106.
In the midst of all the abuse heaped upon the vagrant in his own
time and in our own, it is interesting to remember that he sometimes
did something useful when he got the chance. Even in the days of the
Stuarts he and his descendants played a part in developing the British
Empire and in founding the settlements which led to the existence of
the United States.
[Sidenote: 7 _f_. Pressures on employers.]
But work was also provided for the unemployed by means of pressure
exercised on employers. We have already seen how both in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries the Privy Council endeavoured to compel
cloth manufacturers to continue to carry on their trade, and how cloth
merchants were called before the justices and judges and ordered not
to dismiss their men[561]. Another instance of the same kind of
interference occurred soon after the outbreak of the Civil War. After
Bristol was captured by the Royalists, Prince Rupert endeavoured to
relieve the distress of the time by ordering the clothiers to keep
their workpeople employed for one month at least[562].
[561] See above, pp. 85, 147 seq., p. 153.
[562] Seyer's _Memoirs of Bristol_, Vol. II., p. 420. 1643.
In another case we can see the justices exercising pressure on
particular individuals not because of a fluctuation of trade, but in
order to carry out the ordinary provisions of the poor law. Hitchen
was the centre of an agricultural district, there was no manufacture
in which men could be employed: wages were very low and many were out
of work. The justices therefore ordered the "richer sort" to give
employment, but they thereby only occasioned complaints, for in this
part of the country there seems to have been a permanent difficulty in
finding work for the poor[563].
[563] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 385, No. 43.
At other times municipal rulers exerted their influence in favour of
the inhabitants of a particular town. Thus in 1623 at Reading certain
poor complained; the clothiers were warned to appear and thirty of
them came to the Guildhall. It was arranged that two clothiers should
be appointed to consult with the overseers and see that the poor were
set to work. However the complaints still continued, and both at this
time and in 1630 the difficulty was met by ordering the clothiers
to have all their work done in the town and not to send it into the
country. The distress at Reading was thus lessened at the expense of
the surrounding district[564].
[564] _Records of Reading_, Vol. II., p. 153, Vol. III., p. 39.
That the public authorities of state and town thought they had a right
to exercise pressure of this kind is evident, and many incidental
sayings show us that the employers considered they had a duty in
the matter. Thus at Norwich the hosiers, finding that they cannot
sell their stocks, tell the town rulers that though they have not
yet dismissed their men their money is exhausted and they find it is
impossible for them to go on much longer[565]. They thus intimate that
it was their interest to have dismissed their men sooner but that
they held on as long as they could. In another case an employer writes
to Nicholas about some payment, and hopes he will be used well by the
Council because during a bad time, when most men stopped work, he
continued his manufacture and kept nearly one thousand people at work,
although he lost heavily by so doing[566].
[565] Norwich Court Books, 22nd Feb. 1630/1, f. 326, Vol. 16.
[566] _Dom. S. Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 184, 65.
All this shows that the employers recognised some sort of
responsibility for the men whom they usually employed. The continuance
of business would save much hardship if the cause of distress was
merely a temporary fluctuation in trade. In the cloth-manufacture this
was often the case, and therefore the pressure brought to bear on
employers in this direction must be considered a real method of helping
the poor.
But there was another way in which pressure was put on employers.
We occasionally find that the town, instead of providing a stock of
materials to set the poor to work, reported that the inhabitants found
employment for them or that the inhabitants provided hemp and tow and
flax and set the poor to work themselves[567]. This not improbably
points to some plan like that of the roundsman system of later days. A
man in want of work, on applying to the parish authorities, was sent
round to different employers and was set to work by each of them for a
short period. This plan does not seem to have been much used, for in
most cases the justices mention that the overseers had raised stocks of
money in order to provide work for the ablebodied, and thus imply their
intention of giving direct employment.
[567] Eastwicke. "The poore are set on worke by the inhabitants."
Hundred of Braughing, 4th April, 1631. "Noe stoeke to sett the poore on
worke but they are sett on worke by the inhabitants to spinn towe at
iiii_d._ the pound." _Dom. S. P._, Charles I., Vol. 189, No. 80. See
Appendix.
[Sidenote: 7 _g_. Advancement of capital without interest.]
Perhaps the charity which was most peculiar to the seventeenth century
was that of lending sums of money to set young tradesmen and artificers
up in business for themselves.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries capital was growing
a more and more important factor in production and it was becoming
an increasingly difficult thing for the young journeyman to become a
master.
We must remember that six to twelve per cent. was the ordinary rate
of interest at the time. The difficulty of paying so much probably
prevented many poor young men from starting business. Moreover all
through the Middle Ages lending money for interest was considered
contrary to Christian morality, and many men still held to the old
opinion. In great numbers of places therefore funds were bequeathed
to what have been termed "Lending Cash Charities." Sums were lent to
young men, or sometimes to older men who had lost their capital, either
for no return or at what was then a low rate of interest, and the
borrowers had to find security for the repayment of the original sum.
Many of the City Companies are responsible for the administration of
very considerable sums of this kind. The Haberdashers' Company alone
possesses £2510 which ought to be lent gratis and which was bequeathed
by many different donors between the years 1569 and 1638. The Mercers'
Company possesses at least twenty-one gifts of this kind. One of the
most considerable of these is that of Lady Campbell, who in 1642
bequeathed £1000 which was to be lent gratis on good security to eight
young men of the Mercers' Company; shopkeepers of the mercery were to
be preferred, and next to them silkmen[568].
[568] _Haberdashers' Company Char. Com. Rep._ X. p. 230. _Mercers'
Company Char. Com. Rep._ VI., pp. 285, 291, 307.
Specimens.
David Appowell, 1508. £100 to be lent to two young men for seven years
in consideration of four cart-loads of coal every year.
Alice Blundell, 1570. £100 to be lent to two young men who were to
give 1_s._ 1_d._ every week to thirteen poor folk of the parish of St
Lawrence Jewry.
Richard Fishborne, 1625. £1000 to be lent to five young men free of the
Company £200 each for five years gratis with three good securities.
Not only the City Companies but also the town rulers of most provincial
towns and sometimes parish authorities were trustees for such
charities. At Ipswich bequests of this kind are especially numerous;
they are much smaller in amount than those of London, but they are
typical of the kind of charity that once existed in almost every town
in which old records remain. In common with twenty-three other towns,
Ipswich had an interest in Sir Thomas White's will and received in
its turn £100 to be lent to four poor tradesmen. Besides this no less
than eleven other legacies of this sort were received before 1635.
Amongst these Mrs Alice Scrivener gave £100 to be lent gratis to ten
people for four years, Christopher Cock gave £100 to be lent to four
clothiers for five years, and John Barrett £20 to four shoemakers
without interest[569]. At Reading the same kind of thing was done; in
1626 Mr Ironside left £100 to be lent gratis to two clothiers and two
shopkeepers, and in 1633 Richard Johnson gave £100 for four tradesmen
for twelve years[570]. At Oxford there were once many sums for such
loans, but these have most of them either been lost or are used for
other purposes[571].
[569] _Legacies to charitable uses in Ipswich_, p. 74 seq.
Other Cash Charities of the same kind for the benefit of the
inhabitants of Ipswich were as follows:--
1579. Mrs Rose Bloise £20 to four handicraftsmen for two or three years.
1583. Mr John Tye £25 to five or more persons who are inhabitants for
not longer than three years without interest.
1595. Mr Thos. Goodwin £40 for four poor occupiers for two years
without interest.
1608. Mrs Alice Bloise £40 to six young men, being freemen for three
years.
1616. Mr Willm. Birden £20 to four poor occupiers for four years.
1616. Mr Willm. Acton £80 to four clothiers for four years.
Mr J. Acton added £20 to be lent in the same manner.
1621. Mr Rich. Martin left overplus of certain revenues to be lent to
clothiers.
[570] _Char. Com. Report_, 32, Pt. 1, p. 43. Ironside's Charity.
_Reading Records_, Vol. III., p. 170. Richard Johnson.
Other charities of the kind existed in Reading. See Barbor's and
Winche's _Charities Rep._, 32. Pt. 1, p. 43.
[571] _Rep._ VI., p. 397 seq.
Among the lost charities of Oxford are the following:--
Jane Fulsey, 1603. £40 to be lent to four poor tradesmen for three
years.
Robert Wilson, 1640. £20 to be lent in two, three or four equal
portions for seven years. _Ib._ p. 404.
There are sixteen other lost charities of the kind either without date
or of later date than 1640, and three or four other lending charities
which are still wholly or partially in existence.
In Barnstaple, Bristol, Newbury, Lichfield, Wolverhampton and
Colchester[572] there were similar bequests, and apparently in most
towns charitable funds of this kind were in existence during the
reigns of the earlier Stuarts. It was one of the ways in which the
philanthropists of the time endeavoured to give employment, only
in this case it was not to the vagrant, but to the householder or
skilled workman. Usually these sums were given by private people and
administered by the town. But at Hitchin we find something of the kind
suggested as a method of poor relief. The justices in their report
recount the sufferings of the poor during the plague, and say that
"three poore tradesmen who were shutt up And haue lost their custome
and spent their meanes haue petitioned for stock to put them into Trade
againe[573]." The matter was not yet decided, but from the justices'
language it is clear that they regarded it as quite within their
power to grant relief in this manner. John Lock, tailor of London,
bequeathed gifts of £5 to £10 to the apprentices of Bridewell with a
similar object, and, having regard to the circumstances of the time,
few charities would probably have had a better effect if they had been
honestly administered.
[572] See _Reports of the Charity Commissioners_.
Among these sums at Bristol were the following:--
Alderman Thorne's Gift £500 in 1532 to "succour young men that were
minded to cloth making."
John Heydon, 1579. £100 for two young men trading over seas at interest
of £3. 6_s._ 8_d._
Alderman Whitson, 1627. £500, £250 to five young men for seven years at
interest of ten shillings, £250 to twenty tradesmen for seven years,
&c. _Report_ VIII., p. 597 seq.
Such bequests were also sometimes in the hands of parochial officials.
St Mary, Aldermary. John Kemp in 1569 gave £100 to the churchwardens
that they might lend the same to ten poor occupiers without interest.
Anthony Sprott in 1607 gave £20 to the churchwardens and parishioners
to be lent by them to a young occupier at 16_s._ a year. _Rep._ VI., p.
201.
[573] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 349, No. 70.
We thus see that many different methods were employed to relieve the
old, to train the young and to give work to the able-bodied. The
examples we have already given afford some evidence that legal poor
relief had become well established in many districts, but it was not
equally well administered at all times and in all places. We will now
inquire when and how the administration of the law was improved, and
the answer to this question may suggest the reason why the history
of the English Poor Law is different to that of the rest of Western
Europe.