POOR RELIEF IN FRANCE, SCOTLAND, AND ENGLAND DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND
COMMONWEALTH.
§ 1. Lax administration of poor relief in England during the years of
Civil War.
_a._ Decline of charitable institutions.
_b._ Neglect in execution of ordinary law.
_c._ Instances of corrupt practices.
§ 2. Attempts to regain a good organisation of poor relief under the
Commonwealth.
§ 3. Reasons why disorganisation especially affected the provision of
work for the unemployed.
§ 4. State of poor relief after the Restoration.
§ 5. Reasons for failure under the Commonwealth to restore the old
state of things.
§ 6. History of legislation on poor relief in Scotland,
_a._ Before 1597.
_b._ Between 1597-1680.
§ 7. Failure of administration of poor relief in Scotland during the
seventeenth century.
_a._ Responses of the Scotch justices to the orders of Council in
1623 show that they were unable or unwilling to enforce the poor law
themselves and left it to the kirk sessions.
_b._ Inadequate poor relief granted by the kirk sessions of Banff.
_c._ Relief of the poor in Aberdeen shows that the relief considered
sufficient by the municipal rulers was double that which could be
granted from the funds at the disposal of the kirk sessions.
_d._ Infrequency of assessment in Scotland before 1818.
_e._ Insufficiency of relief during the years 1692-1699.
_f._ Prevalence of begging in Scotland.
_g._ Reasons for the failure of Scotch administration.
§ 8. The history of poor relief in France.
§ 9. Comparison between the history of poor relief in England and that
in France and Scotland.
The histories of poor relief in England after the Civil War, and
in France and in Scotland throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, both compare and contrast with the history of English
poor relief in the period from 1529 to 1644. While in each of these
cases like circumstances produced similar attempts to afford relief,
in none did both an energetic Privy Council and a vigorous system of
local officials coexist, and consequently in each case poor laws were
in existence but were badly administered. The course of events in all
these instances will therefore confirm the view that the survival of
the English system of poor relief is owing to the organisation which
was enforced by the English justices and was created by the Book of
Orders of 1631.
In England the justices' reports concerning the administration of the
poor cease after the year 1639. After that date either no more reports
were sent or no care was taken to preserve them. The cessation of
these documents probably marks the time when the system created by the
Book of Orders began to disappear. Other and more pressing matters
engaged the attention of the Privy Council, and were subjects for
the special inquiries of the judges of assize. The justices devoted
their zeal and attention to raising troops or to meeting the great
demands in money made by both King and Parliament, while constables and
overseers were used as collectors, not only of funds for the relief of
the poor, but also of the revenues needed by the armies[644]. Under
these circumstances the system created by the Book of Orders fell
to pieces, and the whole administration of poor relief became lax.
Still the effect of the execution of the Book of Orders remained. For
nine years the overseers had been drilled by the justices, and the
parishioners had been compelled to pay rates. The inhabitants had
become accustomed to the organisation, and that part of it continued
which was most easily enforced by the overseers, and which seemed to
them most urgently necessary. The impotent were still relieved, and
children were still apprenticed, though less efficiently than before,
but the able-bodied poor were no longer found with work, except in a
few isolated cases.
[644] The Collectors responsible to Parliament for the gathering of the
subsidies for the war were the overseers and petty constables in each
parish.
We will first examine part of the evidence bearing upon the lax
administration of the whole system of poor relief and some of the
efforts which were made under the Commonwealth to restore the old state
of things. Sometimes we hear of the disorganisation of semi-voluntary
charities; at other times of the bad administration of the laws for
the poor; occasionally of fraudulent practices in connection with
charitable endowments.
[Sidenote: 1. Lax administration of system of Poor Relief in England
during the years of the Civil War.
_a._ Decline of charitable institutions.]
The four royal hospitals of London are the most conspicuous instances
of charities which were under public management, but only partly
supported by public contributions. We get from them several complaints
of a partial break-down owing to the Civil War, and the figures
furnished by the Governors speak for themselves. In 1641 there were
over nine hundred children in Christ's Hospital, in 1647 there were
only five hundred and ninety-seven; at Thomas's Hospital, in 1641,
over a thousand patients were relieved, and in 1647 only six hundred
and eighty-two; at St Bartholomew's and Bridewell the numbers had
also decreased[645]. The Governors of Christ's Hospital give us their
estimate of the reasons for this. We are told that "in respect of
the troubles of the times, the meanes of the said Hospital hath very
much failed for want of charitable Benevolences which formerly have
beene given, and are now ceased; and very few legacies are now given
to hospitals, the rents and revenues thereunto belonging being also
very ill paid by the tenants, who are not able to hold their leases by
reason of their quartering and billetting of soldiers and the taking
away of their corne and cattell from them[646]." A few years later
the billeting had apparently ceased, but the tenants then suffered
"by reason of the severall charges and taxes laid upon them[647]."
Even in 1653 we are informed that the revenues of Christ's Hospital
"hath divers wayes fallen very short of means formerly received, viz.
heretofore many have given monies privateley, others very bountifull
at their deaths. And several parishes in London have sent in large
contributions and now but one that sends anything at all[648]."
The Civil War had reduced many of the richer classes to poverty,
and probably most institutions which were maintained by private
contributions would suffer in the same manner as Christ's Hospital in
London.
[645] The Reports of the Four Royal Hospitals for 1641 and 1647.
_King's Pamphlets_, Brit. Mus. 669, f. 4, No. 5, and f. 11, No. 5.
In 1641 there had been 1002 patients in St Bartholomew's, and 711
vagrants in Bridewell.
In 1647 there had been 901 in St Bartholomew's and 575 vagrants in
Bridewell.
[646] Report of the Four Royal Hospitals for 1645. _King's Pamphlets_,
British Museum, 669, f. 10, No. 26. Similar reasons are also alleged in
the report of 1644. _Ib._, No. 2.
[647] _Ib._, 1649, 669, f. 14, No. 11.
[648] _King's Pamphlets_, 1653, 669, f. 16, No. 94.
[Sidenote: 1 _b._ Neglect in execution of ordinary law.]
There are also complaints and instances of the bad administration of
the ordinary law. One of these is contained in the ordinance of the
Lords of 1646/7. The Lord Mayor in the City and the justices and judges
in the country are to put in execution the laws concerning the poor
and rogues, because "by reason of the unhappy distractions of these
times the putting of the Lawes into execution have been altogether
neglected[649]."
[649] "An Order for putting in execution the laws against vagabonds
made by the Lords in Parliament assembled." _King's Pamphlets_, 669, f.
9, No. 81, Mar. 5th, 1646/7. See also an Act of the Commons of England
in Parliament assembled for the relief and employment of the poor and
the punishing of vagrants, 1650.
Numerous resolutions tell us that the state of the London streets had
become almost unbearable. The vagrants hung on coaches and begged
clamorously at the doors of churches and private houses[650]: moreover
not only did men gather in tumultuous assemblies "by playing at
football or otherwise," but many "loose and vagrant persons" also had
been found to wander, who, "under colour of begging in the day time,"
did pilfer and steal, and in the night time "did break into houses and
shops to the scandall of the governmente of this City[651]."
[650] Order issued "By the Mayor," 1655. _King's Pamphlets_, 669,
f. 20, No. 21. "Whereas by neglect of executing the good lawes and
statutes against rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars, that vermine of
the Commonwealth doth now swarme in and about this City and Liberties
disturbing and annoying the inhabitants and passengers, by hanging upon
Coaches, and clamorous begging at the doores of Churches and private
Houses and in the streets and Common Wayes; beguiling the modest
laborious and honest poore (the proper objects of charity) of much
reliefe and alms etc." 23rd Jan., 1655/6.
[651] "By the Mayor." Lord Mayor's Proclamations, No. 18.
In 1652 several resolutions were passed by Parliament on the matter,
and a committee was appointed to consider how the poor might be
employed, to revive the laws concerning the poor and setting them to
work, and "to consider by what means or default the same are become
ineffectual or are not put in execution[652]."
[652] _Votes of Parliament, Tuesday the seven and twentieth of April,
1652_, "For setting the Poor on work and for preventing of Common
Begging." _King's Pamphlets_, 669, f. 16, No. 49.
These resolutions and these complaints at once show that the
administration had become lax, and that there had formerly been a time
in which these laws had "not become ineffectual," and were put in
execution.
[Sidenote: 1 _c_. Instances of corrupt practices.]
There are other cases in which there seems to have been evidence
of corruption. The Chester Hospital, we are told, had been much
neglected[653]; in 1653 we hear also that persons counterfeited the
Letters Patent and orders of the Council of State for licenses to
collect money for charitable purposes, so that people were cheated,
and it was necessary to pass a special resolution of Parliament on the
subject[654]. A curious instance of corruption in the administration
of charitable funds appears at Barnstaple. Many sums of money had been
bequeathed there as elsewhere for the purpose of enabling a young
craftsman or trader to set up business on his own account. Some time
before the war the town rulers found it difficult to find young men
who could furnish good security, and so lent part of the money to more
prosperous manufacturers, who, they said, set the poor inhabitants to
work. But in 1653 the money was altogether misapplied; the Corporation
bought some gold maces, found they had no funds to pay for them, and so
ordered the debt to be paid with this endowment[655]. Apparently the
money was never paid back, for payments on account of it cease after
this time.
[653] _Calendar of State Papers_, Dec. 22, 1657.
[654] _Ib._, Sept. 9, 1653. The order is to the effect that the Council
of State is to take care to suppress and prevent the like abuse in the
future.
[655] Barnstaple Records, _North Devon Herald_, April 22, 1880.
Any one of these instances of fraud and neglect might have occurred at
any time, but so many receive official notice when peace was restored
that they must have occurred more frequently during the war than at
other times. A letter of this period seems to indicate the opinion of
contemporaries: "You speak of feasts to relieve the poor, but it is
well if the money left long since for the poor be given to them and not
to feasts[656]."
[656] _Calendar of State Papers_, Aug. 12, 1658.
[Sidenote: 2. Attempts to regain a good organisation of poor relief
under the Commonwealth.]
As soon as the Commonwealth was fairly well established many efforts
were made to relieve the poor of London. As early as 1647 a new
organisation was established, named the Corporation of the Poor, which
was empowered to erect workhouses and Houses of Correction[657].
Something seems to have been done by the members of this body. The
store-house situated in the Minories and the Wardrobe-house were
granted to them, and here orphans were maintained and many hundred of
poor families were employed and relieved by the Corporation by spinning
and weaving, "and," they tell us, "whosoever doth repair, either to the
Wardrobe near Blackfriars, or to Heiden House in the Minories, may have
Materials of Flax, Hemp or Towe to spin at their own houses if it be
desired, leaving so much money as the said Materials cost, until it be
brought again in Yarn; at which time they shall receive money for their
work and more Materials to imploy them; so that a stock of 12_d._ or
14_d._ will be a sufficient security for any that will be imployed; and
every one is paid according to the fineness or coursness in the Yarn
they spin: there being a certain rule of Length and Tale to pay every
one by, so that none are necessitated to live idly, that are desirous
or willing to work[658]."
[657] _An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament
for the constant reliefe and Imployment of the Poore and the Punishment
of Vagrants and other disorderly persons in the City of London. 17 Dec.
1647._
[658] Note to song "Poor Outcast Children's Song and Cry" published
1653. _King's Pamphlets_, 669, f. 16-95.
But the President and Corporation of the Poor were soon hindered
in their work by want of funds, and were not at all successful
in maintaining order in the London streets[659]. Their greatest
difficulty seems to have been in 1656, and they try an interesting
experiment. Many pamphlets of this century concern the fishing trade
and were written to urge the English to keep it from the Dutch. Some of
the writers consider the fitting out of fishing-boats the best means of
setting the poor of the nation to work[660]. The plan now was actually
attempted; three busses or fishing smacks were taken from the Dutch and
granted to this Corporation for the purpose of employing the poor[661].
[659] Resolutions of Common Council, 6th March, 1656, and 1st April,
1657. Lord Mayor's Proclamation Book, Nos. 14 and 17. The first
resolution sets forth the fact that the Corporation have not funds
sufficient for employing the constables necessary for clearing the
streets; a special rate was to be levied to assist them.
[660] _Britaine's Busse_, 1615. Eden, I., p. 148, and _Provision for
the Poore_, 1649. _King's Pamphlets_, 669, f. 14.
[661] _Calendar of State Papers_, Sept. 2, 1652.
But still the help given was but small; several committees were
appointed by the Council of State, but few decisions were reached;
the measures of relief only concerned London and not the whole of the
country, and even in London comparatively little was accomplished. In
spite of the new orphanage at the Wardrobe few children were educated
there, probably because no money could be got. The hymn sung by the
children implores Parliament to redress the matter:
"Grave Senators that sit on high
Let not poor English Children die
And droop on Dunghils with lamenting notes;
An Act for Poor's Relief they say
Is coming forth; why's this delay?
O let not Dutch, Danes, Devils stop those
Votes[662]."
[662] Poor Outcast Children's Song and Cry. _King's Pamphlets_, 669, f.
16-93.
The work of the Corporation of the Poor continued, but it never
seems to have been great or to have grappled seriously even with
the London poor. In the rest of the country there was probably the
same disorganisation, and less attempt to remedy matters. At Great
Yarmouth the burgesses apparently thought that the spoils of Norwich
Cathedral might be used for the purpose: they petitioned Parliament
to "be pleased to grant vs such a part of the lead and other vseful
materialls of that vast and altogether vseles Cathedrall in Norwich
towardes building of a works house to employ our almost sterued poore
and repairing our peeres etc.[663]"
[663] _Hist. Man. Com. Rep._, IX. App. p. 320. Part of the proceeds of
Lichfield Cathedral seem actually to have been granted to the poor of
Stafford, though the poor had not received any benefit from the grant
because the money had remained in private hands. We are told that
the House of Correction at Stafford was much defaced, though it had
formerly been used as a place "to set the poor on work." _Cal. of State
Papers._ Feb. 17, 1654. Here we can see the process of disorganisation.
The place had been used for the unemployed, but fell into decay during
the war; attempts were made to restore it under the Commonwealth, but
so far they were not successful.
[Sidenote: 3. Reasons why disorganisation especially affected the
provision of work for the unemployed.]
There were many reasons why this disorganisation should especially
affect the plans for the employment of the able-bodied poor.
Even if efforts for this purpose had been much needed after the
outbreak of the Civil War it is probable that they would have been
less enforced than other parts of the system of poor relief. We see
from the justices' reports that schemes of this kind were not usually
undertaken, except under pressure from the justices. The privation
of the helpless old and young appealed far more to the sympathy of
overseers and ratepayers than the needs of the able-bodied poor.
Besides it was far easier to grant pensions than to superintend work
and supply materials.
But a far stronger reason existed for the discontinuance of the
parochial stocks for employing the poor. The necessities of the war
made enormous demands upon the able-bodied males of the population.
The Parliamentary army was recruited from the men above the age of
sixteen and below the age of sixty. An attempt has been made to make
a rough estimate of the proportion of Hertfordshire men drawn away by
the war. If in 1642 the population of Hertfordshire was about one-sixth
of that of the present time it would amount to about 36,000 men, women
and children, and this would mean about 9,000 men of an age fit for
active service. But in the summer of 1644 apparently between four and
five thousand Hertfordshire men were serving in the Parliamentary army
and others with the Royalists, so that a large portion of the work of
the country would necessarily have to be done by women, old men and
boys[664].
[664] A. Kingston, _Herts. during the Great Civil War_, p. 182.
This calculation is very rough, but it probably approximates to the
truth. We hear from the complaints of the time that much inconvenience
was felt. In 1644 the Grand Jury of Hertford Quarter Sessions beg that
"in regard their harvest is at hand and their labourers few to gather
it, some part of their soldiers ... may be for a while recalled to
assist herein." The Committee of the Eastern counties about the same
time write that they have promised that some of the Hertfordshire men
shall return "considering the necessity of their attendance upon their
harvest[665]."
[665] _Ib._, pp. 54 and 55.
The drain on the supply of labourers might not have been so great in
all districts and at all times, but it must have been considerable; the
problem to be solved would therefore be to find workmen and not to find
work. The difficulty of getting men is indicated by the fact that the
Parliamentary army offered two and sixpence a day to a waggoner instead
of the shilling or one and threepence usual before the war[666]. All
who were not altogether incapable could get employment, and there would
therefore be no need for the parochial stocks of materials.
[666] _Ib._, p. 187.
[Sidenote: 4. State of poor relief after the Restoration.]
We should therefore expect that the lax administration during the war
would affect the schemes for the employment of the poor more than any
other part of the organisation, and the evidence of many treatises
published between the Restoration and the Revolution show us that this
was the case. Order had been somewhat restored, and the impotent poor
were then relieved, but the practice of finding work had so much fallen
into disuse that its former existence was almost forgotten. Thus in
a pamphlet published in 1673, called "The grand Concern of England
explained[667]," the writer states that the money paid for the poor
at that time amounted to £840,000 a year, and "is employed only to
maintain idle persons." He proposed that instead of giving the poor
weekly allowance, both old and young should be set to work at spinning,
or some similar occupation. Another treatise, published in 1683, has
been attributed to Sir Matthew Hale[668], and likewise shows that
little was then done for the able-bodied poor. The author says, "Indeed
there are rates made for the impotent poor.... But it is rare to see
any provision of a stock in any Parish for the relief of the poor." The
word "stock" is here used in the sense of capital for the employment
of the poor, and this writer also states that the law provides that
sums of this kind should be so raised. He gives many reasons for the
neglect in the matter. One of these is that there was no authority in
the Justices of Peace or other superintendent officials to compel the
raising of a stock where the churchwardens and overseers neglected
it. Both practice and opinion as to the requirements of the law had
considerably altered since in 1629 the Privy Council told the justices
that it was the opinion of all the judges that they both had the power
and the right to levy stocks to set the poor on work, and since in
1631 the justices from all parts sent in the reports on the Book of
Orders[669].
[667] Harleian Miscellany, viii. p. 582, quoted by Eden, p. 188.
[668] Eden, Vol. I., p. 216.
[669] See above.
The author of a pamphlet of 1685[670] also points out that by the law
of Elizabeth the parish was bound to provide "work for those that will
labour, punishment for those that will not, and bread for those that
cannot; and if the first two parts of that law were duly observed the
Poor would not only be reduced to a small number comparatively to what
they now are, but there would be no such poor as idle and wandering
rogues and vagabonds." The writer further complains that work was not
provided for those who will labour, but only bread both for those who
can and those who cannot labour. These pamphlets thus afford abundant
proof that the plan of raising a stock had fallen into disuse in the
reign of Charles II., and few efforts were made to employ the poor
until new workhouses were founded in different towns, each by separate
Acts of Parliament.
[670] Eden, Vol. I., p. 225.
[Sidenote: 5. Reasons for failure under the Commonwealth to restore
the old state of things.]
This disorganisation, we have seen, was owing to the Civil War. It
is easy to see that when the war was ended, it would be difficult
to restore the old state of things because the old conditions were
altered. The Privy Council after the Restoration had a much less
paternal method of governing, and moreover the nation had outgrown the
old methods of organisation: the Council of State of the Commonwealth
did however try to restore some of the old remedies.
But under the Commonwealth the justices could no longer have been as
efficient instruments for carrying out the poor law as before. Many
of those who had formerly had most local influence were in banishment
or disgrace; others had lost heavily by the sacrifices made for the
war. Probably those who remained were chiefly interested in the more
exciting political and religious questions of the time. But without an
energetic Council and vigorous and powerful justices acting in sympathy
with them, the administration of the poor law had been ineffectual in
the reign of Elizabeth and in that of James I. We should therefore
expect the same result under the Commonwealth and Charles II., except
for the difference made by the ten years in which the relief of the
poor had been efficient. The whole of the improvement was not lost, but
enough of it to show how much the execution of the law had depended on
the Book of Orders, and enough to make the poor relief granted in the
years immediately preceding the war different from that of any future
time.
[Sidenote: 6. History of Legislation on poor relief in Scotland.]
We will now briefly glance at the history of poor relief in Scotland.
Prof. Ashley has shown us that poor laws were not at first peculiarly
English institutions. In every country of Western Europe like
difficulties seem to have occurred at about the same time. Every one
of these countries was developing in new industrial and commercial
directions, and all were becoming more peaceably and quietly governed.
France, Germany, Holland and Scotland were alike troubled with
unemployed vagrants and unrelieved poor. The monastic houses and
hospitals under the old system certainly failed to cure the evil,
perhaps they only increased it. Municipal regulations and state laws
dealing with beggars and almsgiving therefore appear alike in France,
Germany, Scotland, and England, and at about the same time[671].
[671] Ashley, _Economic History_, Vol. II., p. 346 sqq.
In the sixteenth century the history of poor relief in Scotland and in
France is so like that of England as to suggest similar conditions or
possibly conscious imitation. In all three countries it is a history of
successive enactments in which the legal right of the poor to relief is
created, and in which more and more pressure is employed to obtain the
necessary funds.
[Sidenote: 6 _a_. History of legislation in Scotland before 1597.]
In Scotland as in England before 1535 there are a series of
vagabond acts[672], and in 1535 a statute was passed bearing a
strong resemblance to those passed in England under Henry VIII. The
punishments of whipping awarded to vagrants under the older Acts were
continued, and no beggar was to be allowed to beg in any parish except
that of his birth. New regulations were introduced with regard to funds
as in the contemporary English statute; the head men of each parish
were to "make takings" and to distribute to the beggars belonging to
the parish and to them only[673]. Thus, as in the England of 1536,
parochial responsibility was recognised, and the funds were to be
raised within the parish, but without compulsion.
[672] The statutes of 1425 (James I., c. 66) and of 1427 (James I.,
c. 103) are vagrant acts closely resembling those of England in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
[673] James V., cap. 22. Nicholl's _History of the Scotch Poor Law_, p.
12.
The next important change in Scotch legislation was made in 1574, and
the provisions then made were continued and amplified in 1579. In this
later statute the resemblance to the English Act of 1572 seems more
than accidental. Both the Scotch and the English statutes begin with
decreeing sharp punishments for vagrants, although those of the Scotch
law are the more severe. But the later clauses of both statutes deal
with relief, and in the Scottish enactment these are introduced almost
in the words of the English regulations, "And since charity would,
that the poor, aged and impotent persons should be as necessarilie
provided for, as the vagabonds and strong beggars repressed, and that
the aged and impotent poor people should have lodging and abyding
places throughout the realm to settle themselves into," it is ordained
that the provost and bailies in the towns and the justice in every
landward parish shall inquire into the names and condition of the
poor and impotent people born in the parish, or who have lived there
seven years, and shall make a register book containing their names and
surnames. And in order that every parish may know its own poor, all
poor people are ordered to return to the parish where they belonged
within eleven days. The provost and bailies and justices are then to
provide for the sustenance and lodging of those that must live by
alms; in order to meet the cost they are "to tax and stent the whole
inhabitants within the parish according to the estimation of their
substance, without exception of persons, to such weekly charge and
contribution as shall be thought expedient and sufficient to sustain
the said poor people." Overseers and collectors were to be chosen in
every town and parish, and any person who refused to contribute or
discouraged others from so doing was, if convicted, to remain in prison
until he obeyed the order of the parish. Badged beggars were allowed in
some parishes, prisoners were to be relieved and children were to be
apprenticed[674].
[674] James V., cap. 74. Nicholl's _History of the Scotch Poor Law_, p.
16 seq.
Compulsory taxation, parochial responsibility, the authority of
justices or municipal rulers, the appointment of overseers and the
provision made for the impotent poor and children are like those of
the English Act. But there is no regulation concerning the employment
of the able-bodied poor and the clauses concerning apprentices are far
more severe than those in the contemporary English statute[675].
[675] The child taken as an apprentice had to remain under the control
of his master or mistress for a much longer time than in England--the
boy until he was twenty-four and the girl until she was twenty-eight.
There are other vagabond Acts in 1592 and 1593, and the Act of 1592
ordains that the Act of 1579 shall be as well executed in all parts of
the realm as it has been in Edinburgh[676]. This seems to show that in
Scotland as in England the statutes of this time were badly executed,
but were not altogether a dead letter[677].
[676] James V., cap. 149. Nicholl's _History of the Scotch Poor Law_,
p. 27.
[677] The Act of 1579 was not generally well executed. At the
convention of Scottish boroughs held in Aberdeen July 1580,
representatives of certain towns were deputed to ask his Majesty to
take measures "for taking of ordour with euery parochyn to landwart for
sustening of thair awin pure people and impotent personis according
to the act maid in his Grace last Parliament quhilk hes bene as zit
neglected, without the quhilk unpossibill it is to the burrowis to tak
ordour thairanent, being oppressit with ane greit and infinit nomber of
strang and extraordinar beggeris nocht born nor bred within the saidis
burrowis." Marwick, _Convention of Scottish Boroughs_, I., p. 102. In
some towns however measures were taken. In Glasgow as early as 1575
badges were provided for the town beggars, and the rest were banished.
Marwick, _Extracts from the Records of the Borough of Glasgow_, I.,
p. 457. Occasionally also payments were made from the town chest to
particular poor people both before and after 1597. Thus the following
entries occur in the borough accounts:
Aug. 10, 1577. Item to Andro Duncane for his support to mend him of his
hurt, xiij_s._ iiij_d._
July 10, 1578. Item to Serjand Steill in almous to help to cure his
leg, xl_s._
Oct. 9th, 1584. Item gewin to Barbara Ramsaye ane pure wowman with mony
barnis in almous, xx_s._
1612. Item gifin to ane young man quha was rubbit of his pak, xl_s._
In 1597 also before the Act of that year was passed a committee had
been appointed in Glasgow "for reasoning anent the ordour and lawis
concerning the puir folkis." _Ib._, pp. 463, 467, 472, 477 and 187.
In Aberdeen in 1595 more organised relief was attempted. The whole town
on Jan. 23rd, 1595 met together and the poor were divided into four
classes, (1) "babis," (2) "decayit persones hous halderis," (3) "leamit
and impotent persones, (4) "sic as war decrepit and auld" if bred and
born in the town or resident there for seven years. The inhabitants
then agreed some to receive "ane baib" and others to contribute money.
They asked however that the magistrate should take "substantious ordour
anent the expelling of extranear beggaris" and that their own poor
should remain at home and be content with the aid allowed them, "and
according to the said voting ilk man speking be himself as said is,
the roll was instantlie sett down, and sic as everie man grantit be
his awin mouth wreittin, and the babis delyuerit to sic as war content
to receawe them." Extracts from the _Council Registers of Aberdeen_,
II., p. 124. The authorities of both Glasgow and Aberdeen we shall see
made other attempts to relieve their poor, but like the efforts of the
English towns these attempts were seldom long successful.
[Sidenote: 6 _b_. History of legislation in Scotland from 1597 to 1680.]
But in 1597 the next important change occurs. It begins by a clause
which approximates the poor relief system still more to that in force
in England. "Strong beggars and their bairns" are to "be employed in
common work during their life times." But it concludes with a clause
that separates the likeness hitherto existing between the regulations
of the two countries. The execution of the law in landward parishes is
placed in the hands of the kirk session[678].
[678] James V., cap. 272. Nicholl's _History of the Scotch Poor Law_,
pp. 31, 32.
Henceforward the history of poor relief in Scotland is different from
that of England. In England the law of 1597, as re-enacted in 1601,
remained the chief enactment for dealing with the poor throughout the
century, but in Scotland, on the contrary, many alterations in the
law were made; sometimes the kirk session was declared responsible
for relieving the poor, at other times the justices, sometimes the
heritors of the parish, were to assist the sessions, at other times the
presbytery; sometimes the impotent were to be better relieved, at other
times the able-bodied were to be employed in Houses of Correction[679]:
statute succeeded statute in the seventeenth century as in the
sixteenth, and for the most part with as little result.
[679] In 1600 the kirk Session was to be assisted when necessary by
one or two presbyters in the execution of the acts for the relief of
the poor and punishment of vagabonds, and all presbyters were to "take
diligent tryal of the obedience of the said sessions hereanent." _Ib._,
p. 34.
1617. Justices are appointed and are to execute laws against vagrants.
_Ib._, p. 37.
In 1661 justices of the peace were to administer the laws for the
relief of the poor. _Ib._, p. 58.
1672. Correction Houses to be established in thirty burghs. _Ib._, p.
67.
Proclamation of 1692. The heritors, ministers and } This regulation was
elders were to make the lists of the poor, and the charge } confirmed by the Act
for the maintenance was to be borne half by the heritors } of 1698. _Ib._, p. 79
and half by the householders of the parish. } and 84.
Still, in spite of these many alterations, the Scotch poor law always
resembled that of England in insisting on the duty of each parish to
support three classes of people, (1) the aged poor, (2) the lame and
blind, &c., and (3) orphans and destitute children. But the able-bodied
poor of Scotland, unlike those of England, were not entitled to either
work or relief. No legal provision was made for them except in Houses
of Correction[680].
[680] _Ib._, p. 61.
[Sidenote: 7. Failure of administration in Scotland.]
But during the seventeenth century even the relief given to the old
and to the young in Scotland was not thoroughly administered. Not
only do the frequent enactments of the legislature show that the
governing class were not satisfied with the result of the existing
laws on the subject, but the fact that the Scotch poor laws were on
the whole ineffectual is also indicated by the response made by the
justices to the Scotch Privy Council, by the hardships which the poor
suffered in the time of dearth at the close of the century, and by the
continued existence of beggars, licensed or unlicensed, not only in the
seventeenth century but until the beginning of the present reign.
[Sidenote: 7 _a_. Responses of the Scotch justices to the Privy Council
in 1623 show that they were unable or unwilling to enforce the poor
laws themselves, and left it to the kirk sessions.]
In Scotland as in England the Privy Council endeavoured to induce
the justices to secure a better administration of the poor laws.
But the Scotch justices possessed less legal authority than their
English colleagues, while they also were less inclined either to obey
the Council or to impose taxation. Consequently the efforts of the
Scotch Privy Council failed while those of the English Privy Council
succeeded. The effect of the Council's interference in Scotland can be
seen in the events of the year 1623.
This was a time of great hardship. "Mony famileis and tennentis and
labouraris of the ground who formarlie wer honnest houshalderis ... ar
now turned beggaris thame selffis and of all siort of beggaris thair
estate and conditioun is most miserable, becaus thay for the most pairt
being eshamed to beg underlyis all the extremiteis quhairwith the
pinching of thair belleis may afflict thame[681]." In consequence of
this distress the Council issued an order that the destitute poor of
each parish should be adequately supported, and that constables should
be provided to apprehend and punish vagrants. The expense of both
proceedings was to be met by a tax levied upon all the inhabitants of
the district.
[681] _Register of the Scottish Privy Council_, Vol. XIII., p. XXIX.
The replies of the Scotch justices to this order bring out the
difference which existed between England and Scotland in law, opinions
and practice and the consequent difficulty in enforcing in Scotland a
thorough organisation of poor relief. Thus the justices of Haddington
and Lothian write that in regard to the tax which was ordered by the
Council for apprehending and keeping of idle beggars they "doutt if
ane simple proclamatioun be ane sufficient warrand unto us to sett
doun stent upoun every man"; with regard to the relief of the poor
they thought the general contribution beneficial, but "becaus every
contributioun is odious and smellis of ane taxatioun they could
not undertak how to proceid thairin, being ane matter beyond thair
capacitie[682]." The justices of Edinburgh reply that "thair is no
jaillis nor warding plaices within the parochins nor touns of this
sherefdome that is able to conteine a tent pairt of the pure beging
in the same," order was therefore given in Edinburgh that every
landed gentleman should sustain his own poor, and that the ministers
should exhort their parishioners to refrain from giving alms to the
able-bodied beggars[683]. Other justices arrange meetings to discuss
the best means of relieving the destitution which existed; they nearly
all report that it is best for the kirk sessions to "stent" their
own parishioners, and for each landlord to support the poor on his
estate[684].
[682] _Register of the Scottish Privy Council_, p. 836.
[683] _Ib._, p. 818.
[684] e.g. Linlithgow, _Ib._, p. 840. The justices of Perthshire
however said every poor person was to have a peck of meal weekly, and
that the heritors were to pay for it "conforme to the stent roll to be
sett doun be the sessioun of the paroche kirk." _Ib._, p. 820. See also
pp. 826, 832, &c.
Again in 1631 and 1632 there are signs of greater care for the poor
in Scotland, and this may be due to the action of the Council, but
in Scotland it seems clear that the justices left the administration
almost entirely in the hands of the kirk sessions, and that the kirk
sessions were not induced to enforce an adequate system of poor relief
for a long term of years. Consequently Scottish poor relief remained in
the seventeenth century in much the same condition as it had been in
both England and Scotland in the preceding period.
[Sidenote: 7 _b_. Inadequate relief given by the kirk sessions of
Banff.]
In Scotland, as in both countries before 1597, assistance was given
to the poor by the parochial officials, and the money was raised by
collections at the church doors.
How small these contributions were may be seen from the records of
the town and parish of Banff. In 1624 the condition of the poor at
Banff was discussed during the visitation of the presbytery, and the
"haill eldership promised to have ane faithfull cair for provisioune
of thair awne poore and to purge ther bounds of vagabond beggares."
No improved method of relief was reported at the next visitation, but
the "minister and eldares" again promise to look after the poor[685].
In 1631, however, some arrangement was actually made. No one was to
give alms to strange beggars, and the town poor were to be relieved in
their homes. But, in order to secure this result, provision was made
only for twenty poor, although the population of the town probably
numbered nearly two thousand[686]. It seems likely that this was about
the amount of assistance granted in Banff throughout the century, for
in 1673 it is noted that twenty-seven poor received assistance from
the kirk sessions, and in 1691 only twenty-five[687]. This relief was
so insufficient that beggars abounded; in 1633 £3 6_s._ 8_d._ was paid
"To Willie Wat, scurger for outhalding the poore[688]"; in 1642 vagrant
beggars were to be put in the "theiffis hoill" until the magistrates
had time to see them well scourged, while in 1698 and again in 1742 the
system of badged beggars was adopted[689], which is itself an admission
of the insufficiency of the relief afforded by the parish.
[685] _The Annals of Banff_, W. Cramond, II., pp. 23 and 25.
[686] _Ib._, I., p. 65. The population of the parish of Banff was 3000
in 1775, and in 1797 the town numbered 700 less than the parish. The
poor relieved in 1631 were possibly all town poor, but the figures of
1673 and 1691 refer to the whole parish.
[687] Extracts from the Kirk Sessions minutes, _Ib._, Vol. II., pp. 49
and 61. April 14th, 1673, "Distributed poor's money: May 5, £12. 2_s._
4_d._; Aug. 5, £12. 0_s._ 4_d._; Nov. 2, £13. 0_s._ 4_d._; Feb. 2, £13.
12_s._ Ten are Seatown poor and seventeen are town poor." "Nov. 17th,
1691, Distributed to the poor £10. 16_s._ Number of poor: 8 town's
poor, 4 Seatown poor, 6 landwart poor and 5 protemporarious."
[688] _Ib._, I., pp. 74, 86.
[689] _Ib._, pp. 168 and 213. 1698, May 21. "The magistrats and
Counsell appoynt bages for such poor as is thought convenient to
beg through the towne and ordain the drum to goe thorrow the towne
inhibiting to relive any poor except those who have badges."
[Sidenote: 7 _c_. The relief of the poor in Aberdeen.]
Occasionally also, as in Elizabethan England, the burgesses of
particular towns saw that the poor could not live on the relief granted
by the church officials, and made great efforts to raise additional
funds so that they might be able to free their town from beggars. But,
as the convention of Scotch boroughs stated in 1579, it was difficult
to grant relief in one town only, because there were so many beggars
from other parts. In Scotland, as in England under Elizabeth, the town
systems of poor relief ceased to be successful after a few years. The
efforts in this direction made in Aberdeen are probably fairly typical
of those attempted by more philanthropic burgesses. Even in 1595 the
inhabitants of Aberdeen had distributed the destitute "babis" and had
levied voluntary contributions for the other poor[690]. Early in the
seventeenth century, however, beggars existed who were licensed by the
town[691], and in 1619 the "haill towne" was again convened, and it
was agreed that all the beggars should be sustained in their homes and
prevented from begging. It was estimated that the cost would amount to
2,600 marks, and £1,000 of this was to be raised "by way of taxatioun,"
while eleven hundred marks was to be obtained from the contributions
at communion or collections at the church doors[692]. Two years later,
in April 1621, we are told that "the wark hes hed a gude and happie
succes so that the haill poor peopill within this burght that were then
beggaris have beine now almost these thrie yeiris past interteained
and keiped from begging." It was therefore then agreed that the same
methods should "stand and continew" always, and that the town should
continue to contribute its thousand pounds a year, that the poor might
be relieved at home[693]. Why the plan failed does not appear, but
it did fail, since in 1650 tickets were given to the town beggars of
Aberdeen to distinguish them from those of other districts[694].
[690] See note above.
[691] _Selections from Ecclesiastical Records of Aberdeen_, p. 83.
[692] _Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Aberdeen_, I. p. 360.
[693] _Ib._, p. 372. The distribution of relief was apparently still
arranged by deacons appointed by the kirk sessions.
[694] _Ib._, p. 112, Vol. II. _Scottish Burgh Records Society_.
In Aberdeen, therefore, we can see that the money raised by the
kirk sessions was only about half the amount which the town rulers
considered necessary for the adequate support of the poor, and that
when the town was kept free from beggars resort had to be made to a
compulsory tax.
[Sidenote: 7 _d_. Infrequency of assessment in Scotland before 1818.]
But compulsory taxes were very unpopular both in Scotland and England,
but while in England they were forced on the people by the justices
of the peace, acting under instructions from the Privy Council, in
Scotland they never were generally adopted until the present century.
In the report of 1818 the temporary arrangements of Aberdeen and other
towns[695] were forgotten, and it was then said that before 1700 only
three parishes had resorted to compulsion[696]. This means that only
three parishes continued to use assessments for a long period, and
therefore the poor relief granted in Scotland was almost always the
voluntary assistance given by the kirk sessions.
[695] For Glasgow see note below; for Dumbarton see _Dumbarton Burgh
Records_, p. 49. 18th Jan. 1636, "Forsameikill as the magistrattis,
minister and elders of this burgh c^ovenit in this sessioun in the
kirk of this burgh, on the 14 of this instant In respect the burgh is
trublit be straingers and vnkuth beggars and the pure of this burgh
damnifeit, Thairfor thay thocht it best that the magistrattis sould
caus put the Acts of Parliament againe abill and sturdie beggars to
executioun q^rby unkuth pure resort to thair own parochins and the
pure of this burgh and paroche be helpit and bettir maintenit, and to
this effect that the magistrattis sould caus set down ane stent roll
vpoune the inhabitants and burgesses of this burgh for a monthlie
c^otributioun to the poore, to keip them fra begging. [Stentmasters
chosin]."
[696] Report forwarded by the Moderator of the General Assembly and
printed in the 3rd Rep. of the Select Committee of the House of Commons
on the Poor Laws.
[Sidenote: 7 _e_. Insufficiency of relief granted during the years
1692-1699.]
How insufficient this assistance was is indicated by the proclamations
issued during the years of scarcity at the close of the century. The
period from 1692 to 1699 has been called the "seven ill years." The
poor suffered great distress, and a series of proclamations was issued
by the Privy Council with the object of remedying matters.
In 1692 the first proclamation was published; this stated that the
Act for Houses of Correction had been neglected, and ordered the
heritors and inhabitants of each parish to meet and put in execution
the other good laws made for the poor[697]. In the same year a second
proclamation was issued which stated that the previous order had
had little effect because it was uncertain where the beggars were
born and because suitable provision was not made for them in their
parishes[698]. The next year therefore another proclamation was
promulgated, and, it is said, "due obedience" was not yet given to the
laws, "so that the poor are not duly provided for in many places nor
the vagabonds restrained." In 1698 the fourth and last proclamation was
published, and again it is stated that the poor laws have not taken
effect, partly because there were no houses provided for the poor and
partly because the people responsible for the execution of the laws had
been negligent of their duty[699].
[697] Nicholls, _Hist. of the Scotch Poor Law_, p. 78 seq.
[698] _Ib._, p. 81.
[699] _Ib._, p. 83.
The statements of these proclamations show that little poor relief was
then administered in Scotland, but a stronger proof that this was so
is furnished by the existence of the misery endured by the poor during
these years: this was so great that it is said whole parishes in some
districts were nearly depopulated[700].
[700] _Ib._, p. 78.
[Sidenote: 7 _f_. Insufficiency of relief indicated by prevalence of
beggary.]
But the fact which throws the strongest light upon the administration
of poor relief in Scotland is the continued existence of beggary. This
was the real method by which most of the poor were relieved. Even the
Town Council of Aberdeen tolerated licensed beggars, and in 1664 a
resolution was passed by the synod, which shows that the licensing of
beggars was then a general practice in the diocese; it is ordained that
a minister should license "those creaving for support" only within his
own parish[701].
[701] Selections from ecclesiastical records of Aberdeen. _Register of
Synod_, p. 276.
In 1699 the beggars of Stirling also were licensed[702], but the
existence of licensed beggars was not the worst of the evil. This
method of dealing with the matter, it is true, is very strong evidence
that insufficient poor relief was given because it is furnished by the
administrators themselves; the beggar must be destitute, or they ought
not to have given him a license, and he could hardly have been among
those who were too proud to receive relief. But the districts where
unlicensed beggary prevailed were in a far worse condition. How great
the evil was may be seen from the evidence of Fletcher of Saltoun, who
wrote in 1698. His complaints and even his language closely resemble
that of Harman when he describes the English beggars under Henry VIII.,
and that of Hext, concerning those who lived under Elizabeth; they
are in strong contrast to the self-satisfied reports of the English
justices of the reign of Charles I. "There are," he says, "at this day
in Scotland (besides a great number of families very meanly provided
for by the church boxes, with others, who, living upon bad food, fall
into various diseases) 200,000 people begging from door to door. These
are not only no ways advantageous, but a very grievous burden to so
poor a country, and though the number of them be perhaps double to what
it was formerly, by reason of the present great distress, yet in all
times there have been about 100,000 of these vagabonds who have lived
without any regard or submission either to the laws of the land or even
of those of God and nature.... No magistrate could ever discover or be
informed which way any of these wretches died, or that ever they were
baptized. Many murders have been discovered among them; and they are
not only a most unspeakable oppression to poor tenants (who, if they
give not bread or some sort of provision to perhaps forty such villains
in one day, are sure to be insulted by them), but they rob many poor
people, who live in houses distant from any neighbourhood. In years of
plenty many thousands of them meet together in the mountains, where
they feast and riot for many days; and at country weddings, markets,
burials and other like public occasions, they are to be seen, both
men and women, perpetually drunk, cursing, blaspheming and fighting
together[703]."
[702] 20 May, 1699. "Considering the insuportable number of extraneous
and vagrant beggers who daylie frequent this burgh" the elders and
baillies are to meet "and take ane exact account of the poor belonging
to the samen burgh and order badges for them soe as they may be knoune
and distinguished from extraneous beggers." _Extracts from the Records
of Stirling_, Vol. II., p. 90.
[703] Second Discourse concerning the affairs of Scotland quoted and
compared with Hext's letter in Dunlop's _Law of Scotland relating to
the Poor_, p. 1.
This terrible state of things indicates clearly that no efficient
system of poor relief was then in force in Scotland, and shows the
evil resulting from trusting the relief of the poor to charity, when
charity was altogether insufficient. It is, however, well known that
in more charitable days the Scotch system of poor relief found many
supporters who urged that the poor obtained sufficient help, and that
the organisation which relied on charity called forth a much more noble
spirit in both rich and poor than that which depended upon compulsion.
This opinion prevailed especially in 1818, although even then beggary
was nearly universal[704] in Scotland, but it must be remembered that
in 1818 Scottish poor relief gained by comparison with the English
because England was then suffering from the increase in pauperism
produced by the lax rules of administration which had been introduced
into her system of poor relief during the preceding twenty-five years.
[704] See 3rd _Report of Select Committee on the Poor Laws_.
[Sidenote: 7 _g_. Reasons for the failure of the administration in
Scotland.]
But in the seventeenth century the danger was rather that there should
be too little relief than too much. The citizens of Glasgow, like
those of Aberdeen, introduced compulsory assessments, and said the
"commendable cair" for the poor now shown was "to the glorie of God
and good report of this citie"; but, in spite of this good result,
altered their methods, apparently because of the unpopularity of the
poor rate[705]. It is easy to see why this happened. Town governors
and kirk officials were much more affected by unpopularity with the
ratepayers than justices of the peace, and were much less influenced by
the central government. Consequently it seems that because in Scotland
the system of poor relief was not in the hands of the justices of
the peace, there was no period in the history of Scotch poor relief
corresponding to the years in which the Book of Orders was enforced in
England under Charles I. The result was that in Scotland the poor laws
though made were not thoroughly administered until the present reign.
[705] In 1638 the Glasgow Town Council reports in favour of relieving
the poor in their homes, and orders the inhabitants to be "stented" for
their relief. In Jan. 1639 the rate was imposed and amounted to £600,
or one-fifth of the ordinary taxation. In April the poor were to be
"keipit in thair houssis for ane quarter to cum," and in October the
arrangement was said to be successful, and was continued for a year.
But in 1647 the town authorities say they are loath to take the course
allowed by law, and ask the kirk session to "fallow furthe the way
on ane voluntar monethlie contributione"; any deficiency in the sum
necessary for the poor was however still to be contributed by the town.
In 1649 means were formed of stimulating the voluntary contributors
"Anent the inbringing of the poores mentinance it is inacted that the
refuissars be quarterit vpon with sojouries." Still the funds raised
were insufficient, and in 1653 a tax was again imposed only to be again
discontinued a few years later. _Extracts from the Records of Glasgow_,
R. Marwick, Vol. I., pp. 395, 396, 400, 406, and Vol. II., pp. 180,
182, 254, 369.
[Sidenote: 8. The history of poor relief in France.]
The history of poor relief in France is very similar to that in
Scotland, except that in the earlier stages French legislation is in
advance of that of England.
After the middle of the fourteenth century there were vagrant laws in
France and Paris as in Scotland and England. The first general measure
for the relief of the poor also is almost exactly contemporaneous
in all three countries. In 1536, Francis I. issued two edicts. The
first ordains "that the impotent poor who have room and lodging and
dwelling houses shall be nourished and entertained by their parishes,
and for this purpose a register shall be made by the curés, vicars or
churchwardens, each for his own parish," in order that these officers
may distribute alms to the poor who are disabled. In each parish boxes
were to be placed in which offerings were to be collected, and every
Sunday, in Paris as in England, the preachers in their sermons were
to exhort their hearers to contribute. Abbeys, priories, chapters and
colleges were to give their alms to this box[706].
[706] Alexandre Monnier, _Histoire de l'assistance dans les temps
anciens et modernes_, p. 307.
"Par chacune paroisse, seront establis boëtes et troncs qui par chacun
jour de dimanche, seront recommandés par les curez et vicaires en leur
prosnes et par les prédicateurs en leur sermons."
By a second edict of King Francis, issued in this year, the able-bodied
poor were compelled to labour in return for their alms, and it was
ordered that the ordinances made in Paris concerning the poor should
be binding also in the towns of Brittany[707]. These edicts of King
Francis contain almost exactly similar provisions to those of the
statutes of Henry VIII., even in matters of detail.
[707] Monnier, p. 308. Brittany was not thoroughly incorporated with
the rest of France.
Several other edicts between this and 1551 concern the poor, chiefly
the Parisian poor. Public works were established to employ them, and
efforts were made to succour the impotent poor in hospitals. In 1544
a governing body for the poor was established by Letters Patent,
and the right of levying a tax or poor rate was given to this new
authority[708]. But the new taxation met with much opposition, and
in 1551 an ordinance was issued which bears a very close resemblance
to the English statute of 1563. All the inhabitants of Paris and the
suburbs were to state how much they were willing to contribute to
the support of the poor. Their answers were to be laid before the
Parliament, which was then to assess everyone according to his wealth.
The object of the edict was to make the taxation voluntary if possible
without surrendering the right of imposing compulsory payment. Even
at the Revolution this contribution had not altogether disappeared,
although it was too small an amount to have much[709] practical effect.
[708] _Ib._, p. 313 seq.
[709] _Ib._, pp. 314 and 317.
In 1566 it was again ordered that throughout France every town and
every village was to care for its own poor[710]. In particular towns
a good deal was done: not only were public workshops opened in
Paris[711], but in 1612 new hospitals were established, and in Lyons
and in certain other towns the same kind of relief was given.
[710] C. Chamborant, _Du Paupérisme_, p. 92.
[711] _Ib._, p. 95.
But, as in England in the sixteenth century, relief was only
administered in particular districts and for a short time. In France
as in Scotland the history of the seventeenth century was like that
of the sixteenth. Edict succeeded edict; they had some result but not
much; no general system was ever established, nor were the poor ever
effectually relieved. Perhaps it was impossible that laws of this kind
should be executed in France because the French did not possess any
county officials like the English justices of the peace. The Council
might be willing to enforce the law, but the necessary machinery was
wanting, and consequently in France as in Scotland poor laws were only
made; they were not thoroughly administered.
[Sidenote: 9. Comparison between history of poor relief in England and
that in France and Scotland.]
The history of poor relief in France and Scotland thus seems to bring
into greater prominence the fact that the English organisation is not
exactly the inevitable result of the statute of 1601. Like causes led
to like regulations in all three countries, but the regulations did not
lead to the same result. The organisation of poor relief in France and
Scotland continued in the English sixteenth century stage down to the
present century. In the light of their history we can understand the
preamble to the commission of 1631. The justices acted in many parts as
if the poor laws were obsolete, and they were always tending to become
obsolete in France and Scotland. In England that stage was passed
during the ten years of the enforcement of the Book of Orders. Privy
Council and justices were alike effective at the same time; the Privy
Council took action, and the justices were urged to do their duty.
Few officials, perhaps none, could have done the work so well. If the
justices of later days granted too much relief it was because of the
justices of Charles I. that relief was ever efficiently administered at
all.