1597-1644.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW AS A WHOLE.
1. Importance of the period 1597 to 1644.
(_a_) Because it was the period when the relief of the impotent poor
became established.
(_b_) Because it is the only period in which many efforts were made to
set the unemployed to work.
Administration of the Poor Law as a whole.
2. Negligent administration of the Poor Law in the North and extreme
West.
3. The administration of the Poor Law in the rest of England varied
with the action of the Privy Council.
4. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1597 and
1605.
5. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1605 and
1629.
6. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1629 and
1644.
(_a_) State of affairs in 1631.
(_b_) Improvement effected in 1631 and 1632.
(_c_) Improvement maintained between 1631 and 1640.
Provision of Work for the Unemployed.
7. The improvement effected in 1631 especially concerned the
unemployed.
8. The detailed report from Bassetlaw.
9. Provision of work: (_a_) in the North and extreme West, (_b_)
in the towns, (_c_) in the Western counties, (_d_) in the Eastern
counties.
10. Summary.
[Sidenote: 1. Importance of the period 1597-1644.]
We have already examined both the machinery which existed for the
execution of the poor law and the different methods which were used for
relieving the impotent, for training the young and for [Sidenote: 1.
(_a_) Because it was the period when the relief of the impotent poor
became established.]
providing work for the unemployed. We have now to consider the
administration as a whole; to find out when and where the machinery
was put in motion and how far these methods were generally employed.
The history of poor relief in the sixteenth century has already shown
us that it was far more easy to pass a Poor Law than to procure a good
system of administration. There were many poor laws before those of
1597 and 1601 but they were not well administered: they were never so
generally or so effectively enforced as to become part of the practice
as well as of the law of the country.
If the last Elizabethan poor law had been no more successful than these
earlier statutes the whole system of compulsory poor relief would
probably have collapsed during the Civil War. The fact that the part
of the poor law relating to children and the destitute survived that
war, and has ever since formed part of our social organisation may be
attributed therefore to the improved administration of the earlier
Stuarts. The administrators of this period are thus responsible for the
continued practice of any legal system of relief at all.
[Sidenote: 1. (_b_) The period 1597 to 1644 is also the only period in
which many efforts were made to set the unemployed to work.]
But the history of administration during this period is important for a
second reason. The part of the poor law relating to the impotent poor
and children has been enforced ever since the reign of Charles I., but
the clauses relating to the unemployed were very little executed after
the Civil War. In 1662 the destitute were relieved, but the unemployed
were no longer set to work. In this respect therefore the poor law
administration of the reigns of the earlier Stuarts is unique. It is
interesting therefore to examine the methods then employed a little
more closely and see if the instances of the provision of work which
we have already considered are isolated cases of this kind of relief
or if they are examples of a general system. If the unemployed were
at all generally set to work, then this period is important, not only
because the legal relief of the destitute then became the practice of
the country, but because we then had more poor relief than we have ever
had before or since. For a short time a limited kind of socialism was
to some extent established.
We will therefore now try to find out how the events of the period
throw light on these two points; (1) when and how was the system of
poor relief thoroughly established, and (2) how far was that part of it
which concerned the employment of the poor ever an important part of
the social organisation of the country.
The two parts of our inquiry are much intermingled, and it is
impossible to separate them entirely. But in the first part we will
consider the system of poor relief as a whole including the finding of
work for the unemployed when it is closely associated with the other
portions of the system, and we will afterwards examine more in detail a
few points which especially concern the provision of work.
[Sidenote: 2. The administration of the law in the North and extreme
West was negligent.]
With regard to the relief of the poor as a whole, it seems clear that
the law was not equally well administered at all places or in all
times. The places in which the administration of the law was least
satisfactory were those farthest from the seat of government. They
are indicated in some cases by the absence of justices' reports; in
others by the character of the reports, or by the distinct statement
of the statute of 1662. From Northumberland and Cumberland and some of
the counties of Wales we have no justices' reports on the poor law,
and we have little evidence from other sources as to any effective
enforcement of the law. From Westmoreland and Lancashire we have very
few reports until 1637 and 1638, and these seem to indicate that the
system of poor relief was then only recently introduced[574]. From
Wiltshire, Devonshire and Cornwall we have a few reports, but they
indicate a comparatively careless administration. There are few or no
cases of setting the poor to work, and in Wiltshire it was difficult
to find masters for the apprentices. But except in Northumberland and
Cumberland some kind of legal poor relief was administered in all
these counties, although it seems to have been less well administered
than in other parts of the country. The statute of 1662 tells us that
at the time of its enactment parts of Wales, the counties forming
the Bishopric of Durham and the county of Yorkshire derived little
benefit from the statute of Elizabeth[575], and except Yorkshire, these
counties are precisely those from which we have few or no reports.
[574] See _supra_, p. 214.
[575] 14 Chas. II., c. 12.
But in the South-east and Midland parts of England and the rest of the
Western shires the case was different. During some part of our period
the system seems to have been on the whole fairly well organised.
[Sidenote: 3. The administration of the Poor Law in the rest of England
depended upon the action of the Privy Council.]
But this was not equally the case at all times. It was the case only
when the justices were vigilant, and they seem to have been made
vigilant mainly by the frequent letters and orders of the Privy Council.
It is this action of the Privy Council that seems to make the
administration of this period different from that of the sixteenth
century, though it was the existence of the justices that caused this
action to be so effectual. But the letters and orders of the Privy
Council were not always equally frequent even during the period from
1597 to 1644.
We have already seen that in 1597 a letter ordering the good execution
of the new poor law was sent to all the justices of England and Wales.
We have also seen that between 1597 and 1629 this kind of action was
exceptional. The Council interfered in particular cases, and in times
of scarcity commanded general measures of relief, but before 1629 it
did not steadily enforce the administration of general measures with
regard to the relief of the poor in ordinary times. But from 1629 to
1640 we find that the matter is altogether different; a commission is
appointed, a new organisation is introduced by the Book of Orders of
1630/1, and for nine years the pressure of the Council on the justices
is constant and continuous. We have now to see if the improvement in
the general administration of the poor law in all parts of the country
corresponded to the periods when the Privy Council was vigorous. We
will consider first the period between 1597 and 1605, secondly that
from 1605 to 1629, and lastly the years from 1629 to 1640. We shall
find that there are grounds for believing that the administration of
the system of poor relief was best when most pressure was exercised and
was lax when pressure was withdrawn. The main improvement therefore in
the organisation of the system took place between 1629 and 1640, that
is under the personal government of Charles I.
[Sidenote: 4. Action of Privy Council and administration between 1597
and 1605.]
The directions of the Privy Council in 1597 seem to have had an
immediate effect both as regards measures of relief and measures of
repression.
As regards the repressive measures and the efficacy of Houses
of Correction the opinion of Lord Coke is decisive. He had many
opportunities of knowledge and had no reason for not being impartial.
Speaking of the employment and correction of vagrants he says, "And
this excellent work is without question feasible. For, upon the making
of the statute of 39 Eliz. and a good space after whilest Justices of
the Peace and other officers were diligent and industrious there was
not a rogue to be seen in any part of England, but when Justices and
other Officers became tepidi or trepidi Rogues etc. swarmed again."
Speaking of gaols and Houses of Correction he tells us, "Few or none
are committed to the common gaol amongst so many malefactors but they
come out worse then they went in. And few are committed to the House
of Correction or Working-House, but they come out better[576]." For a
little time therefore vagrants were repressed, and the discipline and
relief afforded in Houses of Correction were very efficacious.
[576] Coke's _Institutes_ II., p. 729.
There was also an improvement with regard to the administration of
relief to the more deserving classes of the poor. We have already seen
that special energy was displayed in the West Riding of Yorkshire
at this time, and that there the justices found it very difficult
to administer the law, but did execute it to a considerable extent.
In Devonshire also the justices received a letter from the Lord
Lieutenant, urging them to take especial care for the relief of those
in want, and they too began to take measures for carrying out the law.
They revoked the licenses granted for beggars, put in order the Houses
of Correction and authorised a system of organised billeting on the
rich. The poor were to be relieved with two meals a day, one to every
household or two or more according to the ability of the householder.
If there was any default the justices might assess any sum up to
eighteenpence weekly "for every pole[577]." Moreover the justices were
to raise stocks for setting the poor to work. All this points to a
great increase in vigilance after the Order in Council of 1597 and it
also points to the fact that the administration was recent. A general
system of billeting was seldom adopted when the legal relief of the
poor had been long put in practice. Moreover Devonshire and Yorkshire
in later times were backward in administering the law, so that the
improvement was probably at least as great in other counties.
[577] Hamilton's _Quarter Sessions from Queen Eliz. to Queen Anne_, p.
16.
We should also derive a favourable opinion as to the good execution of
the law at that time from the Duke of Stettin's account of his journey
through England in 1602. Speaking of the Royal Exchange he states, "It
is a pleasure to go about there, for one is not molested or accosted
by beggars, who are elsewhere so frequently met with in places of this
kind. For in all England they do not suffer any beggars except they be
few in number and outside the gates.
"Every parish cares for its own poor, strangers are brought to the
hospital, but those that belong to the kingdom or have come from
distant places are sent from one parish to the other, their wants
being cared for until at last they reach their home[578]." The Duke of
Stettin judges favourably most things that he sees in England but still
his account could not have been written unless beggars had been out of
sight in the parts visited by him and unless the poor had seemed to be
relieved in England more effectually than in his own country.
[578] Translation from the "Diary of the Duke of Stettin's Journey,"
pp. 12 and 13, _Trans. of Royal Hist. Soc._
After 1597 therefore the execution of the law appears to have been more
vigorous and the improvement is likely to have been connected with the
action taken by the Privy Council in that year.
[Sidenote: 5. Action of the Privy Council and administration between
1605 and 1629.]
We will now see how the administration of poor relief was carried
out between 1605 and 1629. We know that during these years the Privy
Council did not make continuous efforts on behalf of the deserving
poor. A commission however was contemplated in January 1619/20, and
the special measures in connection with the years of scarcity of 1621
to 1623 were much more organised than in former years, and may have
suggested an improved administration of the law about that time. We
therefore find that on the whole the law appears to have been badly
executed but that from 1621 to 1623 some improvement took place.
We will first see what are the grounds for thinking the law was badly
executed between 1605 and 1629.
Lord Coke himself tells us "rogues soon swarmed again" and his opinion
is confirmed by the evidence of a tract of this time called "Stanleyes
Remedy or the VVay how to reform wandring Beggers, Theeves, high-way
Robbers and Pickpockets."
This pamphlet was not published until 1646 but seems to have been
composed about the year 1606[579]. The writer is a converted highwayman
who is anxious for the reformation of his fellow-sinners. He states
"that Beggerie and Theeverie did never more abound," and he complains
that the branding and whipping parts of the statutes are put in
execution long before any place is provided where the poor could have
work. He thought that this was most unfair to the vagrants for many of
them would work if they could and go voluntarily to workhouses if they
were in existence. He therefore urges the establishment of places where
men could have work in all the larger parishes of the kingdom[580].
[579] The pamphlet is addressed to King James I. and the statute for
branding rogues is called the "new statute": this probably refers to
the 1 Jac. I. c. 7, 1603-4. No mention is made of the 7 Jac. I. c. 4,
which commanded the establishment of Houses of Correction, and was
passed in 1609-10. The pamphlet therefore was written in the reign of
James I., probably soon after 1604 and before 1610.
[580] Stanleyes, _Remedy_, p. 8.
Another pamphlet complaining of the bad execution of the law was
entitled "Greevous Grones for the Poore" and was published in 1622. The
writer of this states that "though the number of the Poore do dailie
increase all things worketh for the worst in their behalfe. For there
hath beene no collection for them, no not these seven yeares in many
parishes of this land especiallie in countrie townes; but many of those
parishes turneth forth their Poore, yea and their lustie labourers that
will not worke or for any misdemeenor want worke, to begge, filtch,
and steale, for their maintenance so that the country is pittifully
pestered with them[581]."
[581] Eden, _State of the Poor_, I. p. 155.
Another document of 1624 gives precisely the same information. This
is a letter from a Mr Williamson to Sir Julius Caesar, the Master
of the Rolls, who was one of the most charitably disposed gentlemen
of the time. The writer thinks the neglect of the overseers to
apprentice children is the true cause of vagrancy. He tells us that
the seventeenth century vagrant like the modern tramp was very seldom
a man who knew a trade[582]. The existence of these untrained men was
due to the fault of the administrators of the Poor Law. For these
"intollerable offences haue originally growen from the Ou(er)seers of
the poore who heretofore and att this day haue and doe so ou(er)see as
though they did not see at all[583]."
[582] "Among fortie beggers you shall not find one man of trade." Add.
MSS., No. 12496, f. 238. A favourite question of the present Lord Chief
Justice of England before he sentences a prisoner is, "Has he ever been
engaged in any regular work or had any definite employment?"
[583] Add. MSS., Brit. Mus., No. 12496, f. 238. This writer differs
from most of the time in expressing disapproval of Bridewells. He is an
advocate for prevention rather than cure, for apprenticing the child
rather than for correcting the vagrant.
These writings would therefore lead us to believe that justices soon
grew careless; the poor were not relieved and in many places there was
very little execution of the law at all. All these statements are made
by writers who are vigorously supporting only one side of the case but
the official evidence of the period confirms their view of the matter.
The reasons given for the appointment of the commission suggested
in 1619/20 show that the unofficial writers had not exaggerated the
existing neglect in the administration of the poor laws. Good laws
have been made but they are not executed because the justices are
negligent and the judges of Assize have not time to fully investigate
the matter. The laws in consequence "are in many partes of our Realme
laid aside or little regarded as lawes not in force or of small
consequence, whereas in some other counties and partes of this kingdome
in w^{ch} by the diligence and industrye of sume justices of the peace
and other magistrates the said lawes haue bine dulye putt in execucon
there hath evidentlye appeared much good and benefitt to haue redowned
to the Comon welth by the same[584]." At this time therefore there was
a real likelihood that the poor law would become obsolete.
[584] Add. MSS., No. 12504, 14th Jan., 17 Jac. I.
However the season of scarcity in 1622-3 was accompanied by a crisis in
the cloth trade and the Privy Council was active in enforcing measures
of relief. A great improvement was consequently then effected in the
execution of temporary measures of corn relief, and some reports
indicate that this was accompanied by a better administration of the
ordinary poor law also.
Thus from Burnham in Buckinghamshire the justices report, "We have
alsoe looked into and have caused the poore to bee well provided for
in every parrish within this diuision both by stocks to sett them on
worke as alsoe by weekely contributions[585]." From several of the
hundreds of Suffolk there are similar reports. Thus in every "towne" of
Lackford and Exning the rates had been augmented and the "poorer sorte
of people within the seurall townes and places are ordered to be sett
on worke[586]." From other districts in both East and West we have like
accounts[587].
[585] _Dom. State Papers_, James I., Vol. 143, 24.
[586] _Ib._, Vol. 142, 14, I.
[587] _Ib._, Vol. 142, 14, II.
"Wee have by our indevours taken order that the aged and ympotent
poore and maymed soldiers be sufficientlie relieved; Those of able and
sturdie bodies are provided of work." Babergh and Cosford, Suffolk;
also in Williton, Freemanors and Carhampton, Somerset: the report is
dated Mar. 20th. _Cal. of State Papers_, under May 8th, 1623.
Between the years 1605 and 1629 therefore the administration of poor
relief was on the whole negligent and in many districts the poor law
was already considered to be of little importance. The government
was however still anxious to secure its enforcement and the measures
taken to relieve distress in 1622-3 effected an improvement in a few
districts.
[Sidenote: 6. Action of the Privy Council and administration between
1629 and 1644.]
But from 1629 to 1644 we have a different state of things. We know
already that during this period the action of the Privy Council was
continuous and constant, and it is in this period therefore that we
shall be able to see how far it was effective. The justices' reports,
to which we have already often referred are the main sources of our
information.
We will endeavour to see how far the evidence of the early part
of the period confirms the view we have already formed as to the
administration of the law at the beginning of the time, and we will
secondly try to estimate the evidence as to improvement during this
period.
[Sidenote: 6. _a._ State of affairs in 1631.]
The condition of affairs before 1631 is indicated by the preamble to
the commission of Jan. 1631/2 and by some of the earlier reports of
1631. The reasons given for the appointment of the commission of 1631/2
are almost exactly the same as those given in the draft of 1619/20.
The justices are said as before to be negligent so that the laws were
almost obsolete in some parts of the country, and this alone shows that
there had been little permanent improvement since 1620. The preamble
also refers to an earlier time "vpon the present making of the said
lawes," when they were duly executed and thus confirms the evidence as
to the good execution of the laws after 1597[588].
[588] Add. MSS., Brit. Mus., 12496, f. 251. "Justices of Peace,
Magistrates, Officers and Ministers are now of late in most parts of
this our Kingdome growne secure in their said negligence, and the
said politique and necessarie Lawes and Statutes laid aside or little
regarded as Lawes of small use and consequence."
The justices' reports of 1631 give us more detailed information of
the same kind. One of these was sent from three of the hundreds of
Hampshire, Fawley, Bountisborough and Mainsborough. The justices say
that they sent an abstract of the act to the officials concerned and
ordered constables, tithingmen, and overseers to bring presentments to
them. But they "for the most parte" replied, "that they haue noe poore
that wanted worke or releife, that they had noe rogues but suche as
were punished." The justices thought this state of things too good to
be true; they made further enquiries and found that the highways were
out of repair, that no monthly meetings had been held by the overseers
and that there were no stocks for setting the poor to work. They also
heard that some of the poor were "in noe small want" but did not
complain because of ignorance or fear. They hoped to effect improvement
by exacting fines for negligence, by publishing the particulars of
their monthly meetings, and by sending a series of definite questions
to the overseers as to the names of the poor relieved or set to
work and of the children over ten years of age who were not bound
apprentice[589]. In this way they tried to obtain detailed statements
so that there could be no evasion of the law. There is a later report
from Fawley concerning corn and apprentices, and the part of the law
relating to apprentices was certainly then carried out[590].
[589] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 188, 85. See Appendix XII.
[590] _Ib._, 250, 11, I. The justices had met several times in
accordance with directions from the judges at the last assizes: they
had bound apprentice twenty poor children.
But there are other districts in which the justices do not tell us of
negligent officials, but rather seem proud of their vigour and yet seem
to imply that it was only recently the law had come into force. This is
particularly the case in Radnorshire and Cheshire. In two divisions of
Radnor the justices say they have appointed overseers, and have given
particular directions as to the provision of stocks and return of the
names of the poor relieved[591]. The reports suggest that the justices
were now energetic, but that little had been done before; the mention
of the appointment of overseers is unaccompanied by the word new or by
any statement as to the rendering of the accounts of the old overseers,
so that it is possible that these were the first overseers appointed in
that district.
[591] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 194, 18, II. and III.
In two of the divisions of Cheshire the same state of things is
implied more definitely. The justices say that they have ordered the
collection of a stock for the setting the poor to work and for the
relief of the impotent, but they find the people poor and averse to
paying money for any purpose of the kind. They fear some time will
elapse before these orders can be properly executed. At present these
divisions have not got a House of Correction, and the justices wish
to have one in the Castle in order that they may be able to subdue
the people to subjection[592]. These reports seem to reveal a very
primitive state of things, and recall the difficulties in the West
Riding of Yorkshire in 1597, when poor relief seems to have been first
enforced there, and the people greatly objected to the imposition of
rates.
[592] _Dom. State Papers_, Vol. 195, 21 and 31. June, 1631.
Other reports show that the Book of Orders strengthened the hands of
reformers; thus in the town of Wells, charities had been negligently
administered, but after the issue of the orders the Recorder was able
to procure information formerly withheld, and hoped to effect farther
improvement by obtaining a commission of charitable uses[593].
[593] _Ib._, Vol. 194, 19. Wells, Somerset.
It is thus fairly clear that before 1631 the law had not been well
administered. We will now examine the evidence as to the improvement
between 1631 and 1640.
[Sidenote: 6. _b._ Improvement effected in 1631 and 1632.]
The greater number of the reports of 1631 and 1632 point to some
execution of the law before 1631 and suggest improvement rather than
entire innovation. The justices generally state they have "raised
rates" or have bound many more children apprentices or that stocks had
been provided in the parishes where there were none before. Two reports
enable us to trace the process of improvement in detail, and seem to
throw considerable light on the general statements of other documents
of the kind. They do not however present so favourable a view as to
the execution of the law as most of the other returns. These reports
relate to the district of Braughing in Hertfordshire. The overseers
of thirteen places in the half hundred of Braughing made returns to
the justices at six successive monthly meetings held in accordance
with the provisions of the Book of Orders, between Feb. 7th and June
27, 1631. Abstracts of these returns were sent in by the justices
in two documents, one of which was forwarded in April and the other
in July 1631[594]. We can thus see exactly when the improvement was
effected. At the first meeting four parishes provided corn at reduced
rates for the poor. The Book of Orders relating to scarcity had been
issued since September, and we should expect some improvement would
already have been made. Six sets of overseers had already placed some
children apprentices, but not very many, and only two of the largest
places had stocks for setting the poor to work. At the last meeting
on June 27th relief was much more extensively administered. Two
other places provided corn at reduced rates: the six parishes which
formerly had placed a few apprentices now bound many more, while five
other townships also provided for the children in this manner. A much
better provision for the employment of the poor was also made. In five
places instead of two there were now stocks for this purpose and most
of the others give reasons for the want of one. In three cases we
are told there is plenty of employment, at Eastwick the inhabitants
set the poor to work, and at Westmill the general statement only is
made that the poor are relieved according to their necessities. Three
places do not provide stocks or give any reason for not doing so. We
can also see that these funds might often have disappeared, for the
ten pounds stock at Hunsdon had "decayed" to only five pounds at the
end of the period. In the district of Braughing therefore the law
was executed in the larger places before 1630 but negligently even
there. Immediately however after the receipt of the Book of Orders the
justices set themselves to work, held the monthly meetings, stimulated
the overseers, and in five months succeeded in effecting a very
considerable improvement.
[594] See Appendix XII.
This was only typical of what was going on all over the country. It is
of course impossible to quote all the reports of the period; it is
only possible to give particular cases, and to state that they are not
isolated instances, but are typical of the documents of that time. Thus
in April, 1631, we hear that meetings had been rapidly held and that
they had been partially successful, but that the justices were still in
the midst of their activity; they had done a good deal to make matters
better and were still doing more. For example in the account sent from
the New Forest the justices write "the rates for the poore where neede
most requireth wee haue caused to be rised for reliefe of the poore
people w^{th}in that part, and haue given strict order to the ouerseers
for providing necessary releife for such as are ympotent and such as
are able to sett them to worke, and haue alreadie placed many poore
children apprentizes and doe proceede in placinge of more[595]."
[595] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 188, 45.
In the returns sent later in the year the organisation appears to
be more settled and we hear that not only the rates are raised but
that they have had a good effect. Thus in Monslow in Shropshire the
justices state "and as for the late booke of orders for the reliefe
of the poore and the punishing of rogues and vagabonds wee have had
severalle monthlye meetings in the said hundred and wee have long since
worked such effect thereby as they have not any rogues or vagabonds
appeared amongst vs or walked abroade as wee can heare of since our
first meetings, and the impotent poore are relieved in such sort by
their parishoners as wee have noe complaints and there are stocks in
all parishes more or lesse as the charge of the parishes require to set
the able poore on worke[596]." Not all the reports are as favourable
as this, but on the whole they indicate that improved order followed
the execution of the Book of Orders. It thus is clear that the Orders
of 1631 had a very considerable immediate effect both in bringing the
law into operation in places where it had been almost or altogether
neglected and still more in improving the administration in those
districts in which the system was already to some extent administered
though not yet effectually.
[596] _Ib._, Vol. 194, 17, V.
[Sidenote: 6. _c._ Improvement maintained between 1631 and 1640.]
We have now to see whether this improved administration was maintained.
The reports are certainly less frequent after 1631 but those that
remain shew that the efficiency is preserved and there is much to
indicate a farther improvement.
We will first examine a few documents which seem to indicate that the
area of administration was extending into backward districts, we will
then investigate a few cases in which we have reports both in 1631 and
in 1638 or 1639, and we will lastly consider a special department of
the poor law system, namely the placing of apprentices.
We have already noted the fact that in the earlier years of the period
there were few reports from Westmoreland and Lancashire.
But in 1638 there are a series of documents from Westmoreland[597]
and several reports from Lancashire. In 1638 some of the Lancashire
parishes adopted the system of billeting the poor in need of relief on
the richer inhabitants. This plan does not seem to have long continued
as an exclusive system of relief, and the facts that it was still
employed and that these are the earliest reports from Westmoreland seem
to indicate that a compulsory system of poor relief had only lately
been established in the northern counties. Moreover in 1637 we are told
that at the meeting of the justices in Rochdale in Sept. 1637, the
churchwardens of Middleton confessed that they had never before levied
a tax for the relief of the poor there; they now however proceeded
to levy one, and in March in the following year the tax provided the
necessary relief[598]. All this seems to show that the area of the
administration of the poor law was extending and that in 1638 there was
little danger of the system of poor relief becoming obsolete but that
it was obtaining a firmer hold over the country.
[597] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 388, 7. April 18th, 1638.
[598] _Ib._, Vol. 385, 15. The want of a poor rate seems to be reported
as an unusual fact, and at Rochdale at the same time the poor rates
amounted to £340, a hundred and twenty impotent people were relieved,
and a hundred poor families assisted.
We will now examine a few of the cases in which we have reports from
the same district both in 1631 and 1638 or 1639. We have already
noted the detailed returns from Braughing. It happens that one of the
latest documents of the series returned in August 1639 comes from the
hundreds of Hertford and Braughing. The justices tell us that our
"ympotent poore are weekelie releiued by a certein pencon and the
rates increased as necessitie requires. And those of able bodies are
plentifullie stored with work for the maynteynance of their families";
five apprentices had also lately been bound[599]. From this we see that
the improved administration there lasted throughout the period.
[599] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 427, 4. Aug. 1st, 1639.
We have several other places from which we have similar reports.
Skenfreth, one of the hundreds of Monmouth, often sent accounts of the
proceedings of the justices. One belongs to May, 1631. The justices
state some of the things they did both before the Commission and
afterwards. Before the Commission they provided weekly stipends for all
the aged and impotent people, "sithence the said commission" they "have
taken order that the same stipends shalbe contineually paied soe that
none of any such poore people have made any complaint unto us for any
mainetenance." Both before and after the commission they had punished
rogues and since they had also placed apprentices and suppressed
alehouses. Moreover the highways had been last year in better condition
than for twenty years before[600].
[600] _Ib._, Vol. 192, 51. May 26, 1631.
Thus the immediate improvement effected by the commission was that
the pensions were paid as well as ordered, apprentices were bound and
alehouses suppressed.
In May, 1637, we have a report from the same district together with the
hundreds of Ragland and Trellech. At that time apprentices were bound,
rogues punished and efforts made to secure the observance of fasting
days. The justices have also "taken course for provision of stock to
sett the poore on worke," and have "caused to be sufficiently relieved
all the aged lame and ympotent people[601]." Thus if these documents
are to be believed the improvement effected in 1631 was maintained and
even increased in this hundred of Skenfreth.
[601] _Ib._, Vol. 355, 63. See also Vol. 293, No. 23.
There are many other cases in which reports are sent in several times
from the same place and all show that the improvement made in 1631 was
continued in 1637, 1638 or 1639[602].
[602] From Whittlesford, Chilford and Radfield, Cambridgeshire, April
1631, Vol. 189, 75, the justices report there are twenty-five "townes,"
and state "That the impotent poore in every towne are releeved. That
wee have put out in these three hundreds betweene six and seaven score
apprentyces. That the able poore are provyded for or sett to worke."
From the same three hundreds. July 1638. "We are certifyed by the
ouerseers for the poore that the impotent poore are relieved and the
other poore are provided of worke." Do. Vol. 395, 114.
From Freebridge Lynn, Freebridge Marshland, and Clackclose, Norfolk,
the justices, in 1631, report that the impotent were relieved, and
children were bound apprentice. Vol. 195, 47.
In July 1638, we hear from the same district, "And more particularly
wee haue taken especiall care that the statute of the 43^{th} yere of
Quene Elizabeth shold be exactlie obserued in raysing of stocks of
materialls for setting the poore of able bodyes to worke and raising
competent somes of monye for the releife of the poore and impotent and
putting forth poore children to be apprentices." Vol. 395, 32.
See also Edwinstree and Odsey, 189, 13, and 426, 73, etc.
We will now examine a few of the reports which relate especially to
the placing of apprentices. Before May 1635 the Privy Council or
the commissioners seem to have urged the justices to see especially
that this part of the law was carried out, and to have asked them to
report the names of the apprentices and those of their masters[603].
The reports sent in 1634 and 1635 therefore relate especially to the
placing of apprentices and the monthly meetings of the justices.
[603] Vol. 289, 14.
Reports from twenty-one places were sent in between July 17th and July
31st, 1634. In almost every case the justices expressly state that
they hold monthly meetings and bind poor children apprentice[604].
In the year 1635 the statements are more detailed. Between May 20th
and May 30th replies were sent from ten places in eight of which the
names of both apprentices and masters were given[605]. Sometimes
these were numerous; thus at Blandford in Dorset one hundred and
nineteen apprentices were bound in the course of two years[606]; in
one district of Somerset the names of one hundred and sixty-six are
returned[607], while in all ten districts a fair amount of work was
done. Thus in 1634 and 1635 apprenticeship was more insisted upon
than other methods of poor relief and it seems to have been very
generally well administered. We hear of some complaints but not many in
proportion to the number of reports.
[604] Vol. 272.
[605] Vol. 289.
[606] Vol. 289, No. 48.
[607] Vol. 289, No. 20. The hundreds of Whitleigh, Huntspill, Puriton,
North Petherton, Cannington and Andersfield.
We thus see that during the years 1630 to 1639 we have a large amount
of information concerning the administration of the Poor Law. We find
that a great improvement was effected in 1631. We also find that the
area of administration continued to extend into the Northern counties
after 1631: the difference is indicated by the fact that in 1638 it is
exceptional to find a place without a poor rate, whereas in 1631 the
Government spoke of the laws as being almost obsolete in many places.
We see further that sometimes the later reports come from the same
places as the earlier, and that then the administration continues to
be reported as good. Lastly, in regard to apprentices we are told that
the Privy Council made special efforts to enforce the law, and that
all over the country there is evidence that it was enforced though
occasionally without favourable results. There is thus reason to
believe that the efforts made by the central government to enforce the
law were at last successful, and that the period to which we owe the
survival of our English system of poor relief is that of the personal
government of Charles I.
But we have already noticed that not only is this period the critical
time in the history of the poor relief that survived, but in one
respect the poor relief of this period was unique. Many efforts were
made to find work for the unemployed. Relief of this kind was so much
a part of the general system of the time that we have already examined
many instances in which it was administered.
We will first investigate a few more of the reports of 1631, and
we shall find that the improvement effected in all parts of the
administration of poor relief especially concerned the relief of the
ablebodied; we will then examine a detailed report in order to see what
light it throws on the interpretation of the general statements of
other justices, and we will lastly try to find out if relief of this
kind was confined to a few districts, or was administered all over the
country, and also in what parts of the country there was the greatest
need of employment.
[Sidenote: 7. The improvement effected in 1631 especially concerned the
unemployed.]
To begin with cases in which improvement was reported in April 1631.
From a large district of Hertfordshire we hear "we haue already raysed
a stocke in some parishes, and are raysing stocks for the rest to sett
all the poore on worke in this division[608]." In Essex, Richmond,
Bedford and Beverley fresh taxes for this purpose had just been raised,
and at Agbrigg they were still "setlinge such a course for raysinge of
stocke to sett y^e people of able bodies on work[609]."
[608] For the Liberty of St Albans and the hundred of Cashio (excepting
Rickmansworth, Watford and Sarratt), Vol. 188, 43.
[609] _Essex_, Vol. 188, 92. Poor in misery, because clothiers do
not set them to work, but the justices "did cause" the "able men of
parishes" to "raise stockes and meanes to sett their poore on worke."
_Richmond_, Vol. 189, 65. "We haue likewise given direccons for another
assessem^t to be presently made and levyed for the raising of a summe
in grosse for a stocke for the setting to worke suche as are able and
binding and putting forth apprentices w^{ch} occasions haue hitherto
beene supplyed forth of the com(m)on stocke of the towne chamber w^{th}
the making and levying of w^{ch} assessement the overseers are now in
hande."
_Bedford_, Vol. 189, 27, I.
_Beverley_, Vol. 189, 8, X. Stocks were raised for keeping the poor to
work "(viz^t) in St Maryes parish six poundes, in St Martin's parish
sewven poundes, and in St Nicholas parish six pounde, besides the
stocks they form(er)ly had." The poor were employed in spinning hemp.
_Agbrigg_, Vol. 189, 55. The justices sat at Wakefield, yesterday, for
this purpose. The letter is dated April 29, 1631.
At Winchester the same thing is implied: the stock has been put in
a clothier's hands, so that now the poor do not want work[610].
Twenty-eight reports relating not only to measures for corn, but also
for the poor were sent in between April 21st and April 30th 1631. In
seventeen of these the poor were set to work, and in many cases we can
see that the measures have been taken since the receipt of the Book of
Orders of January 1631/2[611].
[610] Vol. 188, 101. Mayor of Winchester, etc., reports to Sheriff of
Hants, "First that wee haue raised and provided a stock of money and
putt it into a clothiers hands to sett the poore people on worke that
are able to worke, and now they doe not want worke."
[611] _State Papers_, Vol. 189. We have already referred to the cases
of Whittlesford, etc. no. 75, Agbrigg no. 55, Braughing no. 80,
Edwinstree and Odsey no. 73, Essex no. 92, Richmond no. 65, Bedford no.
27, and Beverley no. 8, X. Besides these, work was provided in Shepway
(6), Doncaster (8, III.), Mansbridge, Buddlesgate and Soke, Hants.
(11), Co. Nottingham (12), Bramber (16), Clackclose, etc. Norfolk (44),
Borough of Buckingham (60), Alton, Hants. (66), the hundred of Hertford
(79), and Badbury (83). All these places sent reports between April
21st, and 30th, 1631.
In the answers sent in May we have the same kind of information.
In Brixton and Wallington we have a report similar to that from
Hertfordshire; "stockes of mony," we are told, "are raised in moste
of the parishes w^{th}in the said hundrede and burrow and the reste
not yet raised are w^{th} as much expedicon as may bee to bee raised
for buyinge of flax, hempe and other materialls to set the poore to
worke[612]." From Arundel there is a like account, "we haue caused the
taxations for the releefe of the poor to be raised in euery parish in
this time of scarsitye, and haue likewise caused stocks of mony to be
raised in euery parish to buy materialls to sett the poor a warke, and
we haue caused the Statute of Laborors to be inquired after and to be
putt in execution[613]."
[612] Vol. 190, No. 66.
[613] Vol. 191, No. 45.
We can thus see that in 1631 the justices were busy raising stocks to
provide work for the poor, and that in seventeen documents, or more
than half of the reports of the last ten days of April 1631, we are
informed that measures had been taken with this object.
[Sidenote: 8. The detailed report from Bassetlaw throws light upon the
more general statements of the justices.]
We will now examine a more detailed report relating to sixty parishes
of Bassetlaw in County Nottingham and sent in during March 1636/7[614].
In most cases information is given under four headings, first we are
told how many of the impotent poor are relieved, secondly the amount of
the town stock, thirdly how many rogues have been punished, and lastly
how many apprentices have been bound. This document is important
because it seems to indicate the number of parochial officials who
provided work for the unemployed in the district of Bassetlaw. This is
not directly stated in the report, but the overseers return the amount
of the town stock of their parish whenever a town stock existed. From
the method in which the return is made it seems that this town stock
was always used for finding employment for the able-bodied poor[615].
Other methods of dealing with those out of work are also noted, so
that it appears that in forty-five out of sixty parishes the parochial
authorities provided employment for those poor who could work. The
amount of the stock was often quite small; in one case only sixteen
shillings, but it is very possible that in this instance the parish
also was small; in another place the stock consisted of a sum of
about thirty pounds, and the average amount was about three pounds.
This document from Bassetlaw only states in detail what many of the
other reports imply, but the detail is much more convincing, and it is
confirmed by the overseers' accounts from Barnet and Elstree which we
have already examined[616]. It is perhaps worth while to notice that as
early as 1623 the justices wrote from Bassetlaw that work for the poor
was wanting, and they even then ordered that the labourers should be
set to work by the town's stock and the impotent relieved by the public
contribution[617].
[614] Vol. 349, No. 86.
[615] The supposition that the town stock was used in Bassetlaw for
employing the poor seems almost certain for the following reasons:
(1) In the earlier entries this is often directly stated to be the
case. Thus we are told at Laneham that the "towne stocke" was used to
buy hemp "to sett such poore on worke as wante."
(2) When a town stock is reported not to exist other methods of
employing the poor are sometimes mentioned as a reason for the absence
of such a stock, and thus it is implied that a town stock when it
existed was used for this purpose. Thus for example at Grove they have
"no towne stock in regard, theire poore are otherwise sett on worke;"
at Egmonton "Towne stock they haue none because they imploy theire
poore in other worke as they wante;" while at Laxton cum Morehouse
there was no stock because those who wanted work were otherwise
employed "by the towne."
(3) There is an earlier report from Bassetlaw sent in on July 29th,
1636. This report relates to fewer places, but in some respects is
fuller. In eleven cases where only the amount of the stock is noted in
1637, the fact that it was employed to provide work is directly stated
in 1636. Thus for example the following entries occur:
Askham. "Five marks stocke to sett the poore on worke." (20 marks 1637.)
Kirton. "Tenn pounds in Towne stocke wherew^{th} the poore are sett on
worke and two new howses built for them."
Clarebrough (Clarborough). "They have iii^{li} vi^s viii^d towarde
releiueing the poore and setting the(m) on worke."
Misterton cu(m) Stockw^{th} (Stockwith). "That their Towne stocke is
Tenn pounds towards setting their poore on worke and releiveing them."
East Markham. "And that they haue 5^{li} in stocke to sett the poore on
worke." (£7 in 1637.)
Bole. "5^{li} Towne stocke w^{ch} is imployed to sett poore on worke."
Warsopp (Warsop). "They haue in Towne stocke to sett their poore on
worke xi^{li} iiij^s." (£11 in 1637.)
Cuckney. "They have tenn pounds Towne stocke to sett their poore on
worke." (£7 in 1637.)
Carberton (Carburton). "They haue in Stocke to maintain their poore in
worke fifty shillings." (40_s._ in 1637.)
Mattersey. "They haue 5^{li} towne stocke to sett their poore on
worke." (£10 in 1637.)
Eakring. "Tenn pounds in Towne stocke w^{ch} is putt out for vse of
the poore. And the 7^{th} of June the(y) (the overseers) certifie
that they haue raysed xx^s stocke to sett poore on worke and giue
weekely allowance to six poore people," besides 40^s. more for placing
apprentices.
In these eleven cases therefore the town stock was certainly used
for employing the poor. In four other instances, however, a general
statement is made as to the use of the stock which perhaps indicates
that the whole of the stock was not always employed entirely for one
purpose. Thus for example at Eaton £2. 6_s._ 8_d._ was "in stocke for
such poore as should neede." However in no case do these statements
contradict the supposition that the town stock in this district was
partially used for finding employment for the poor, and the direct
statement of the 1636 report in these eleven cases is strong evidence
that in the remaining nine places the stock was used in the same
fashion.
[616] See _supra_, p. 182.
[617] _D. S. P._, James I., Vol. 140, 10. I.
[Sidenote: 9. Local variations in the provision for the unemployed.]
[Sidenote: _a._ Not so extensive in the parts North of the Humber and
in the extreme West.]
We have now to try to find out if it was only in a few counties that
work was found for the unemployed, or if it was all over England. We
have already noted that in the counties north of the Humber, and in the
three western counties of Devonshire, Cornwall, and Wiltshire the poor
law was apparently less well administered than in other parts of the
country. In these counties with the exception of Yorkshire therefore
there are few instances in which stocks are found for providing work
for the unemployed. We hear however that in Ashton-under-Line there
existed a "small stocke of money which is disposed on for the setting
of poore to worke[618]". Moreover, in two Yorkshire reports of 1635 it
is stated that the justices have been "verie carefull to raise stockes
for setting ou^r poore on worke[619]." There are other Yorkshire
returns containing information of the same kind, but still the plan of
finding work for the unemployed of the North seems to be comparatively
unusual.[620]
[618] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 395, 106. In the same report it is
stated that Oldham could not afford to raise a stock.
[619] _Ib._, Vol. 293, 122 and 129. The quotation is from a report from
Ryedale signed by Lord Fairfax; the other document, in which almost
exactly the same words occur is from Buckrose in the East Riding.
[620] Although the fact that the poor were employed in Devon and
Wilts is not recorded in any of the justices' reports which have been
preserved, we hear from other sources that work was found for the poor
in some places in those counties. Thus the following memorandum refers
to an attempt to establish a workhouse in Plymouth; it is to be found
among the municipal records in that town. "In the name of god the 28th
of September an^o 1610 A note of provisio^{ns} delivred into y^e Castle
for the pore to thende they maye be there placed & sett on work, w^ch
is but abeginninge for a fewe & a tryall thereof the w^ch I praie god
continewe and augment to his glorye & their comfort.
Imprimis 2 bedsteads
* * * * *
5 twines 2 paire of wollen cards" &c.
Two years later £20 was bequeathed by W. Lawrence "to the stocke
to sett y^e poor to worke," and early in the reign of Charles I. a
"workehowse for the setting of the poore on worke" has been lately
built and the overseers paid the corporation £9. 12_s._ for the rent
of the three tenements which formerly had existed on the site. R. N.
Worth, _Plymouth Municipal Records_, pp. 156 and 257, and _Hist. of
Plymouth_, p. 273.
In Marlborough also there was certainly a workhouse, for a petition was
presented to the Privy Council in the name of the Mayor and burgesses
concerning John Thorner, an Attorney-at-Law, who "was rated among
others to pay 52/- towards the erecting of a workhouse and raising
of a stock for the employment of the poore that are able and willing
to worke to be paid at three general payments whereof one is already
passed at our Lady day last." Thorner had refused to pay his rate,
"saying that it was against the law," and had encouraged others not
to pay, so "that manie of the inhabitants there made refusall also to
pay their proportion." The Privy Council referred the matters to the
judges, and in the mean time the rate was to be paid. _Privy Council
Register_, 13th May, 1631.
But with regard to the rest of England this is not the case. In
every county except Northampton some justices state that they have
found employment for the poor. As we might expect this was done most
frequently in the towns and in the manufacturing counties, both because
in these places there were more rich people and because there were also
more unemployed owing to the greater fluctuations of trade.
[Sidenote: 9 _b_. Provision of work more necessary in the towns than in
the country.]
A report from Reading and Theale illustrates this: "Wee finde that the
able poore in boddy to worke and w^{ch} are in country villages and
hambletts haue theire ymploymt in husbondrie and by that meanes are
mayntayned; other lyen in such countrie townes, populer, incorporate,
where heretofore multitudes of such able persons haue lived by worke
from the clothier, now through the defect and decaye of that trade and
soe consequently of the clothier, thousands of these poore formerlie
relieved by worke liue in much want and could hardlie subsist this
deere yeare did not many extend theire charity even beyond their
meanes[621]." Newbury and Abingdon were also towns in the same
neighbourhood subject to similar conditions, and we know already that
workhouses were founded in both these places and in Reading itself
also[622]. Shrewsbury and Hereford are fair examples of more westernly
towns. At Shrewsbury the justices report in June 1631 that they "are
aboute a course to sett all the poore on worke within our Towne
and Libertyes[623]," and in 1638 an order was made for regulating
a workhouse there[624]. About the same time the Mayor of Hereford
records that "there is a colleccon made in euerie severall parish
w^{th}in the said Cyttie, and competent somes raysed for to releive
the impotent and needy, and a stocke for the setting of poore able
people to worke and for the placeing of youth apprentices[625]." Other
magistrates report in like manner: thus in the rape of Hastings they
have caused the officers "as much as in them lyeth to see the said
poore inhabitants bee duely kept to worke and haue fitting materialls
provided for them[626]." In the hundred of Hertford the justices state
in 1631 that the more populous places have already raised stocks of
money to set the poor to work, and that they are still trying to induce
all the others to do so though a few are not rich enough to bear the
necessary taxation[627]. From St Albans, Reigate, Ipswich, Maidstone,
Lynn, and Norwich, as well as from more inland towns we have similar
information: the magistrates of Bedford write that "we haue raysed
divers extraordenary taxes for the reliefe of our poore and settinge
them on worke and therby they are set to worke[628]." But perhaps the
Buckingham report indicates the most thorough organisation. There the
poor had been visited apparently in the same way as at Norwich. Five
hundred people were examined; the age and occupation of each were
noted, and whether they had work or not. Afterwards employment was
provided for those who needed it and we are told that the poor "of good
disposicon are glad they are thus settled w^{th}out begging and settle
themselves seriouslie to their labo^r." This good result however was
not obtained without complaints from the ratepayers[629].
[621] _Dom. State Papers_, Vol. 191, 40. II.
[622] See above.
[623] _D. S. P._ Vol. 194, 17. III. 14th June.
[624] The orders of the corporation of Shrewsbury, "That a stock be
raised for setting the poor on work and the Castle be repaired and
imployed for that purpose." _Shropshire Archæological Journal_, XI. p.
169.
[625] _D. S. P._, Vol. 194, 41. II. See below for Shaftesbury,
Leominster, Gloucester, Banbury, Abergavenny, &c.
[626] _Dom. State Papers_, Vol. 188, 34.
[627] _Ib._, Vol. 189, 79.
[628] _Ib._, Vol. 189, 27.
[629] _Ib._, Vol. 189, 60, and 187, 2.
In the country districts also employment seems to have been provided
as well as in the towns whenever the poor suffered much from the want
of work. In the western counties, however, there were few complaints
of lack of employment, except from the cloth-workers when the trade
in cloth was slack. Some justices expressly state that there is no
want of work in their part of the country. Thus from a large district
of Somerset we hear that there are "none lefte unplaced but such as
doe mainetaine their charge by their labor[630]." Therefore, as we
should expect, in many reports from the West nothing is said about
finding employment for the able-bodied poor. There are, however, also
a fair number of cases in which work is said to be provided. This is
especially the case in the counties of Shropshire and Stafford; thus
from Staffordshire three reports were sent in 1634, and in all three we
are told that the poor were set to work[631]. Moreover, the Worcester
justices write that "wee are carefull ... that the able poore bee
well provided of worke[632]" and in almost all[633] the other western
counties, at least one instance of the kind is reported[634].
[630] Vol. 192, 48. Hundreds of Whitley, North Petherton, Cannington,
Andersfield, Huntspill and Puriton. See also Vol. 289, 57. Unnamed
division of Somerset, "The poore are well set on worke as farre as we
doe or have taken knowledge of by our best enquiryes."
[631] _Dom. State Papers_, Vol. 272, 61, July 25th, 1634. Pirehill, co.
Stafford. "And we haue and doe take course to provide for and to sett
on worke the poore of the several parishes within the said hundred."
_Ib._, Vol. 272, No. 65. Offlow. "We caused poore people to be sett on
worke."
_Ib._, Vol. 272, No. 66. Totmonslow. We "further haue takein course to
provide for and sett on worke the poore of the severall parishes."
[632] Limits of Worcester, _Ib._, Vol. 349, 73, 9th Mar. 1636/7.
[633] The exceptions are Devon, Wilts, and Cornwall. See note above.
[634] This question is so much one of detail that it is perhaps worth
while to refer to one justice's report from almost every western
county, some from towns, and some from the country:
1. _Berks._ June 1631. Abingdon. _Ib._, Vol. 195, 7. "We haue erected
in our borough a workehouse to sett poore people to worke."
2. _Cheshire._ Edisbury, June 29th, 1631. Vol. 195, 21. The justices
order "stockes of money and wares" to be raised, but find the people
averse to find money for any such purpose.
3. _Derby._ Appletree. 185, 41. Feb. 1630/1. See below.
4. _Dorset._ Shaftesbury. 188, 67. April 1631. "Haue made provision
and taken orders for settinge to worke of such idle persons and poore
people as are of able bodies and strength to bee ymployed in trades and
labor."
5. _Gloucester._ June 1631. Vol. 194, No. 11, I. Gloucester. "For
those that are of abillitie to worke we haue provided them meanes to
sett them on w(orke) soe they may lyve by their labor w^{th}out beinge
further chargable to others."
6. _Hants._ Kingclere. Nov. 1633. Vol. 250, 11, IV. "The justices"
have taken order that such as are able to worke are imployed in their
several parishes."
7. _Hereford._ Leominster. June 1631. Vol. 194, 41, III. "Item the
poore are provided for and such kept at work that are able to work."
8. _Monmouth._ Ragland. July 3rd, 1634. Vol. 271, 17. The justices
since the commission have levied sums of money in every parish and
township to buy "woole, flaxe and other necessaries towards the setting
of poore to woorke."
9. _Oxford._ J. Ps. for co. Oxford, Vol. 188, 96. April 19, 1630. Have
not omitted to provide "stockes" to "sett able poore on worke."
10. _Shropshire._ Bishop's Castle. Vol. 223, 39. 3rd Oct. 1632. "Here
is herin but one church wherin are churchwardens, ouerseers of the
poore duely elected and nominated; and monthly now we meete and we take
order for mayntenance of the poore by setting the able to work and
relief of the impotent."
11. _Somerset._ Frome, Kilmerston, Wellow and the adjoining districts.
Vol. 185, 40. Feb. 1630/1. The justices have seen to the relief of the
poor and setting them to work.
12. _Warwick._ Knightlow. Vol. 199, 65. 13 Sept. 1631. "The Constables,
Churchwardens and Ouerseers for the poore in the rest of the townes
in theis two divisions doe certfie vs that all ys well ... the poore
are sett on worke and releiued and wee heare noe complaints to the
contrarie."
[Sidenote: (_d_) Provision of work in many districts in most counties of
the east.]
But in the east and south-east there was at any rate sometimes a
chronic want of employment, and consequently numerous efforts to
provide for the able-bodied poor. In the country round Hitchen we are
told, as in the Reading district, that it is the poor in the town
that are distressed, but in the hamlets the farmers find work for the
inhabitants. The justices say they have no manufacture, and they do
not know how to find a remedy for the people in the town. At one time
they make the richer people employ the poor, but they do not find the
experiment successful[635]. We have also an account of a permanent want
of employment in a large district of Norfolk. In the hundreds of South
Greenhoe, Wayland, and Grimshoe provision had been made by raising a
stock to set the able-bodied poor to work, and besides the magistrates
write, "Wee have manie young people w^{ch} live out of service by
reason of the multitude of them, there not being services for them, but
worke is provided for them in their seuerall parishes[636]."
[635] _D. S. P._, Vol. 427, 3. 1st Aug. 1639, Vol. 385, 43, and 349, 70.
[636] _Ib._, Vol. 385, 27. March 5, 1637/8.
There are very many reports of stocks for the provision of work in
other country districts of the east. In Hertfordshire, Suffolk,
Norfolk, and Cambridge there is much to make us think the system was
nearly general[637], and in each of the other eastern counties there
are many cases of the kind.
[637] _Herts._ Edwinstree and Odsey. _Ib._, Vol. 426, 73. July 29,
1639. The justices "haue directed stocks of money to be raised where
need is to sett the poore on worke." See also above for hundreds of
Hertford and Braughing, St Albans borough, and liberty of St Albans.
_Suffolk._ Hartismere. Vol. 349, 12. March 1636/7. "Those who are able
to worke and cannot provide worke for themselues are sett to worke."
Cosford. Vol. 395, 35. July, 1638. The justices have "bin careful for
the setting of poore people work," etc.
Hundreds of Loes, Wilford, Thredling and Plomesgate. 13th July, 1638.
Vol. 395, No. 55. See App. XII.
Also Hundreds of Carlford and Colneis. Vol. 395, 62. July, 1638, and
Ipswich, Vol. 195, 45.
_Norfolk._ South Erpingham and Eynsford. July, 1638. Vol. 395, 90. The
justices have "taken care ... for the employment of the able," &c.
Division not mentioned. July, 1634. "We haue caused stockes to be
raysed in the severall parishes of our limitts to sett the poore beinge
able of bodye to worke." Vol. 272, 60.
For Freebridge Lynn, Freebridge Marshland and Clackclose; South
Greenhoe, Wayland, and Grimshoe; and also Lynn, see above.
_Cambridge._ Hundreds of Cheveley, Staploe, Staine and Flendish
(formerly all in Cambs.), "Item wee find upon our inquiry that the
seuerall towne Stockes within o^r diuision are orderly imployed and
accounted for and the poore of the seueral parishes sett one worke and
imployed therin according to the Lawe." Vol. 285, 99. March, 1635.
Chesterton, Papworth and North Stowe. 216, 45. See App. XII. Radfield,
Chilford and Whittlesford. Vol. 395, 114, and Cambridge borough. See
above.
In a district of Middlesex the unemployed were sent to fight for
Gustavus Adolphus[638], but in most parishes materials were provided
for them to work up. Thus in several hundreds in Kent "stocks of
materialls" were provided in every parish[639]; in Nottinghamshire
those out of service and able to work were set to work "on the towne
stock[640]," while at Horncastle sessions, in Lincolnshire, the
justices take "special care ... that the abler sort bee constantly
sett on worke by the stocke of the parishe[641]." Sometimes the sum
expended was very considerable if we take into account the great
difference in the value of money. Thus in Wallington, Surrey, more than
£120 was used for providing work, while nearly fifty pounds remained
in hand[642]. On the whole therefore in the eastern counties, between
1631 and 1640, it seems that considerable sums of money were raised and
employed in most districts[643] with the object of setting to work the
able-bodied poor.
[638] 24th Oct. 1631. _Ib._, Vol. 202, 20. Report for Clerkenwell,
S^t Sepulchre, S^t Giles, Islington, Finchley, Friarne, etc. "There
is alsoe in the house of Correccon a manufacture prepared and by a
charitable stocke of a hundred pounds given by S^r John Fenner Knight
nowe in readynes an Artizan, who hath Articled and agreed w^{th} vs to
take, instructe & bringe vp in the saide manufacture as apprentices
twenty poore orphans boyes and Girles such as before wandred in the
streetes and weare readie to perishe for wante of imployment." "Many
idle and loose persons haue byn lately imployed and sent to serue under
his ma^{tie} of Sweden and such others as are taken up in watches or
Privie Searches w^{th}in o^r division are continually settled in some
course of life or sent to the howse of Correccon." See also Appendix
XII.
[639] Ruxley, Little, Lesnex, Axton, and the vill of Dartford and
Wilmington. _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 220, 14. July 4th, 1632.
[640] _Ib._, Vol. 272, 40. July, 1634.
[641] _Ib._, Vol. 349, 113. March, 1636/7.
[642] _D. S. P._, Vol. 315, 25. March, 1635.
"Item. Money disbursed }
to set the poore on woorke. } cxxii^{li} iijs.
Itm. Moneys in stocke for the settinge of the poore to worke. xxxxvii^{li}."
[643] The following are instances in which work for the poor was
provided in some district in every other eastern county:
_Sussex._ Rape of Bramber. _Ib._, Vol. 189, 16. April, 1631. The
justices "haue compelled some that misspent their tyme to fall to labor
and haue provided worke for them and others that alleaged they wanted
worke."
_Bedford._ See above.
_Bucks._ Boro' of Buckingham. Vol. 201, 13. 3rd Oct., 1631. "Our poore
are kept to work and o^r stock is still going, wee have noe poore that
begg." Oct. 3rd, 1631. See above also.
_Essex._ Vol. 188, 92. April, 1631. Great want of work; the justices
"haue not only delt w^{th} the able men of parishes to prouide and laie
in corne for prouision of the poore at under-rates but did cause them
to raise stockes and meanes to sett their poore on worke."
_Hunts._ Hundred of Hurstington. Vol. 329, 83. 1636. Signed by Sir
Oliver Cromwell, H. Cromwell and Robert Audeley. The justices called
before them the overseers of the poor and caused them "to render vs
an accompt what stocks of money haue beene raysed for settinge the
poore on worke and howe the poore haue beene releiued. Whoe haue made
it appear before vs that the statute in this case hath beene duely
obserued throughout the said hundred."
_Leicester._ West Goscote. Vol. 349, 35. March, 1636/7. The justices
relieve and set to work poor people, punish rogues, and put all
instructions of the Book of orders into execution, "w^{ch} course wee
finde very beneficiall and much conducinge to the generall quiett and
goode of the countrey and wee therefore w^{th} more cheerefullnes
addresse ourselues thereunto."
_Lincolnshire._ Horncastle Sessions. Vol. 349, 113. 14th March, 1636/7.
The justices "haue taken speciall care ... that the abler sorte bee
constantly sett on worke by the stocke of the parishe."
_Rutland._ Vol. 185, 55. Feb., 1630/1. The justices state that "order
is taken (according to lawe) for reliefe and setting to worke of poore
and impotent people."
[Sidenote: 10. Summary.]
We have thus seen that in 1631 the improvement in the administration
of poor relief concerned especially the relief of the able-bodied
poor, and we have noted many instances in which taxes were raised for
this purpose at that time. We have also examined a detailed report
from a particular district in the county of Nottingham in which in
forty-five out of sixty parishes some provision seems to have been made
for finding employment for the poor. Moreover, we find that the plan
of providing work for the unemployed was reported from some district
of every county south of the Humber except Cornwall, Northampton,
Devon, and Wilts; and in Devon and Wilts also the same plan was tried,
although no report of the justices has been preserved. This form of
poor relief thus seems to have been frequently in use in the towns
of both east and west, and in the country districts of the eastern
counties also. It was not quite so general in the country districts of
the west, but still was not infrequent even there.
We may, therefore, say that from 1631 to 1640 we had more poor relief
in England than we ever had before or since. We shall try to estimate
later how far this system was successful. But we will now see what
happened to the organisation of English poor relief during the Civil
War. We will also trace the history of poor relief in France and
Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in order that
we may see that the history of poor relief in England is unique.