Chapter VIII: Parliament and the Privy Council (1)

1597-1644.
1. Characteristics of the period.
2. Legislation from 1597 to 1644.

Administrative machinery.
3. Action of the Privy Council before 1629.
4. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the provision
of corn.
5. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the unemployed.
6. The Book of Orders as a whole and the royal commission of 1630/1.
7. Interference with wages as a method of helping the poor.
8. Summary.

[Sidenote: 1. Characteristics of the period.]

The years between 1597 and 1644 are in many respects a unique period in the history of English poor relief. A great deal of evidence exists, which seems to indicate, that in many places during some of these years the whole of the Elizabethan poor law was put in execution: that is, work was provided for the unemployed as well as relief for the impotent.

After the Civil War a part only of the system survived. There are thus grounds for believing that never since the days of Charles I. have we had either so much provision of work for the able-bodied or so complete a system of looking after the more needy classes when they were suffering from the effects of fire, pestilence and famine. For this reason alone the history of the poor at this period is especially interesting, and it is also at this time that the history of the poor is more directly connected than usual with the history of the nation as a whole.

We will trace as in the preceding periods the history of legislation and of the action of the Privy Council. But the relief of the poor is a matter which can only be efficiently administered by men who have a great knowledge of detail. The action of the Privy Council would have had very little effect unless there had been an efficient system of local government.

We will therefore examine the local machinery of administration as well as the central and will see what kind of work was done by judges, justices and overseers in regard to the relief of the poor. We shall then know who did the duties with regard to relief now performed by the Local Government Board, Boards of Guardians, magistrates, and relieving officers.

We must then regard the system of poor relief from another point of view and see what kind of relief could be obtained both in the country and in the towns by the different classes of poor. This will include the help afforded to the whole of the poorer population in years of scarcity as well as the means that were taken in ordinary times to pension the old, to train and maintain children, and to find work for the unemployed.

Lastly we will endeavour to determine when and where the administrative machinery was really set in motion and how far the relief afforded to the different classes of poor was given all over the country. The answer to these questions will enable us to see why it is that in England poor laws were not only made but administered, while in some other countries they were not administered even after they had been made.

[Sidenote: 2. Legislation from 1597 to 1644.]

The work accomplished with regard to the poor by Parliament was unimportant during the period from 1597 to 1644 but some slight changes were made in the law. It was in 1601 that the statute on which our system of poor relief has since rested was passed in its final form. This law, known as the 43 Eliz. c. 2, is often regarded as inaugurating new methods of dealing with the poor, but as a matter of fact few important legal enactments have initiated fewer innovations. It is simply a re-enactment with very slight alterations of the statute of 1597-8. The clause of the statute of 1597 which declared all beggars to be rogues if they asked for anything more than food was omitted in 1601, while the liability of parents to support their children, imposed in 1597, was in 1601 extended to grandparents also. Otherwise the slight differences between the two Acts consist chiefly of modifications of detail, designed to render certain doubtful points of law[302]. This statute of 1601 was itself only passed as a temporary measure but it was continued by the Parliaments both of James I. and of Charles I. It remained by far the most important regulation concerning the relief of the poor until the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834[303], and is in force as the basis of our system of Poor Relief at the present day.

[302] Other differences between the two Acts were as follows:

1597-8.

(1) Four Overseers were to be nominated
yearly in Easter week.

(2) Every inhabitant or occupier of
lands in the parish was to be assessed.

(3) People refusing to work were to
be sent to the House of Correction.

(4) A girl might be apprenticed
until 21.

(5) In 1597-8 the Mayors or Head
Officers of Corporate Towns being
justices of the peace had the same
authority within their towns as justices
of the peace in the country.

(6) If a parish be in two counties
or partly in a county and partly in a
borough the justices or head officers
of the towns were to "deal and intermeddle"
only within their own "Liberty."

1601.

(1) Four, three or two Overseers
were to be nominated according to the
size of the parish in Easter week or
within a month after Easter.

(2) In 1601, the liability of the
parish, vicar, owner of tithes impropriate
and of saleable underwoods and
of the occupiers of houses is specially
mentioned.

(3) In 1601 they might be sent to
the House of Correction or gaol, probably
because there was not yet everywhere
a House of Correction.

(4) If she married she was released
at the time of her marriage.

(5) In 1601, these powers were extended
and the Town officials had not
only the same authority as the justices
out of their sessions and at their
sessions, but the same power as was
appointed "to any two or more of them
or to the justices of the peace in their
Quarter Sessions." Every Alderman
of the City of London in his Ward
had the same power as one or two
justices in the county.

(6) If the parish were in two counties
or partly in a county and partly
in a borough there were only the one
set of Overseers, but the justices or
Mayors &c. were to be responsible for
the execution of the Act only within
the part of the parish in their own
counties or borough and the Overseers
were to account to both.

(7) In 1601 the penalty on justices
for neglecting to nominate Overseers
was fixed at £5.

(8) A special order was made that
the island of Foulness should be treated
as a parish.

(9) It was also provided that if an
action for trespass should be brought
against anyone acting in accordance
with the provisions of the statute, it
should be lawful for him to plead
"Not Guilty" or to plead the authority
of the Act. He was to be entitled to
treble damages "by reason of his
wrongfull vexacon."

Between the passing of these two Acts a series of resolutions was circulated which related to the statute of 1597. These were attributed to the judges and if they correctly stated the law several of the new clauses of 1601 were already legally binding. Thus four of the resolutions were as follows:

Res. 16. By this word parents is understoode a father or a grandfather, mother or grandmother, being persons able.

Res. 17. Within the word children is included any childe, or grandchilde, being able.

Res. 18. Parsons or Vicars &c. bee bound (as inhabitants) to the relief of the poore as wel as others that inhabite within the parish.

Res. 19. Everie one that hath Tithes impropriate, coale mines or lands in manuel occupation &c. is chargeable. And so for such as haue saleable woods proportioning the same to an annual benefite.

W. Lambard, _Eirenarcha_, ed. 1599 after p. 206. See E. Cannan, _Hist. of Local Rates_, p. 75.

[303] 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 76 (1834).

In comparison with this statute all other legislation of the period on the subject is of small importance, but several additions were made to the law, and in four cases these contain provisions which supplement the system of relief ordered by the principal enactment of 1601. The first of these concerns maimed soldiers and was also passed in 1601[304]. The two former statutes on the subject, 35 Eliz. c. 4, and 39 Eliz. c. 21, were repealed, but the provisions of both of them were practically re-enacted. A County Treasurer was to be elected who was to pay pensions to those who had been wounded or maimed in the wars. The money was to be raised by a county rate levied on the parishes as formerly provided, but the amount that might be so raised was now increased to an average of sixpence weekly from every parish with a maximum of tenpence from the most highly rated parishes. Another enactment relating to the relief of the poor was the 43 Eliz. c. 4. This was likewise passed in 1601 and substantially re-enacts a statute of 1597 (39 Eliz. c. 6). It provides for inquiries into breaches of trust by means of writs directed by the Lord Chancellor to the bishop of the diocese. The list given of the kinds of charity affected shows how great and varied was the endowed almsgiving of the time. Some funds had been assigned for "reliefe of aged impotent and poore people; some for maintenance of sicke and maymed souldiers and marriners schooles of learninge, free schooles and schollers in Universities; some for repaire of bridges, portes, havens, causwaies, churches, sea bankes and highwaies; some for educacon and prefermente of orphans; some for or towardes reliefe, stocke or maintenance for howses of correccon; some for mariages of poore maides; some for supportacon, ayde and helpe of younge tradesmen, handicraftesmen and persons decayed; and others for reliefe or redemption of prisoners or captives and for aide or ease of any poore inhabitants concerninge paymente of fifteenes, settinge out of souldiers and other taxes[305]." In both years in which the great poor laws were passed, in 1597 and in 1601, a statute of this kind was authorised. The fact indicates that Parliament desired to maintain and strengthen the older voluntary system of charity in order that it might work concurrently with the newer organisation now growing up. A third measure relating to the relief of the poor was passed in 1603 and provided that a special rate might be levied for the sustenance of those infected with plague; the rate in this case was to be levied, not only from the parish but from the whole of the surrounding district[306].

[304] 43 Eliz. c. 3. It is interesting to notice that this provision for maimed soldiers was due to Sir Robert Cecil, Hatfield MSS. VII. p. 160.

[305] Bequests for some of the more unusual of these purposes occur among the charities of Ipswich.

Thus in (1513) Jan. 14, the following entry is made: "Edm. Danby at this Court declared that he had given to the Town lands and tenem^{ts} in vallew 6^{li} p annu' to the end that they should discharge the poore commonalty of the Towne of all dismes, quinziemes and charges w^{ch} shall happen: the lands doe lye in Rushmere." Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, p. 186.

Mr Henry Tooley, Portman of Ipswich, in a will dated Nov. 4, 1550 bequeathed:

£100 to the repairing of Bone Bridge.
£20 to the amending of the Haven.
£100 towards repairing and amending certain highways.
20_s._ to every maid who is fatherless and poor and shall marry within
Ipswich until £60 should be spent.

An Indenture of 1513 recites that a Mr Drayle left £70 in order to release natives and foreigners from certain tolls &c. Ipswich, _Gifts and Legacies_, pp. 1 and 168.

[306] 1 James I. c. 31.

But the fourth regulation of this kind is the most important. It was passed in 1609-10 and concerned the building of Houses of Correction. The Bill introduced on this subject in 1597 had been rejected after much dispute and discussion and in its place the statute "on rogues" had been hastily passed; this had repealed all the old regulations concerning Houses of Correction and although it gave the justices the power of levying a rate for the establishment of such institutions it had not compelled them to use the power. The law therefore on this point was much less exacting in its requirements than that which had previously been in force. The new enactment of 1609-10 therefore provided that one or more Houses of Correction must be erected within every county. It is here laid down that these houses were to be used to set "rogues or such other idle persons on worke," and no mention is made of the deserving unemployed[307]. This therefore probably marks the time when Houses of Correction ceased to be half workhouses and became very much more like gaols.

[307] 7 James I. c. 4.

Thus while the law of 1601 is the basis on which relief was given during the period, additional provision was made during the next ten years for the assistance of maimed soldiers and of persons infected with plague, and for the building of Houses of Correction[308].

[308] The following are other statutes concerning the relief of the poor and passed during the period 1597 to 1644:

1 James I. c. 7. Removes the exemption of glassmen from the statute of rogues. States that no licence by a nobleman shall exempt players and provides for the branding and in certain cases for the death of dangerous rogues.

1 James I. c. 25. Continues 43 Eliz. c. 2 and provides that masters may retain the pauper apprentices whom the Overseers have bound to them.

7 James I. c. 3. Enacts various provisions with the object of securing that funds which had been left to bind poor children apprentices shall be properly employed.

21 James I. c. 1. States that the licence to erect "abiding or working houses for the poor" is to continue for ever.

21 James I. c. 28. Continues 43 Eliz. c. 3, with addition of 1 Jac. I. c. 25. Also continues 1 James I. c. 7, and 7 James I. c. 4, repeals 11 Hen. VII. c. 2, and 19 Hen. VII. c. 19, 12 Ric. II. cc. 3-9, and also 22 Hen. VIII. c. 12 and 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 16.

3 Chas. I. c. 5. Continues 43 Eliz. c. 2, and empowers Overseers to set up any trade they will, provided it is only for the purpose of employing the poor, notwithstanding any statute to the contrary. This last enactment was probably designed to protect the Overseers from penalties for violating the statute of apprenticeship.

Another series of statutes assigns the fines for their infraction to the relief of the poor. Some of these are as follows:

1 Jac. I. c. 27, 7 Jac. I. c. 11, 21 Jac. I. c. 28, most of the fines for the infraction of the game laws.

1 Jac. I. c. 9. Fines of alehouse keepers for allowing people to sit tippling in their alehouses or for selling for a penny less than one quart of best beer or two quarts of small.

4 Jac. I. c. 5. } Fine of 5_s._ for drunkenness or 3_s._ 4_d._ for 21 Jac. I. c. 7.} sitting drinking in an alehouse in one's own parish.

3 Jac. I. c. 4. Fine of one shilling for absence from church.

21 Jac. I. c. 18. Fines for breaking certain regulations for making cloth.

21 Jac. I. c. 20. Fine for profane swearing, one shilling.

1 Car. I. c. 1. Fine for meeting for games outside one's own parish on Sunday or in one's own parish for unlawful games.

3 Car. I. c. 2. Fine of 20_s._ for carriers driving on Sunday.
Fine of 6_s._ 8_d._ for butchers killing meat on Sunday.

Before leaving the statutes it is perhaps worth while to notice the proviso that exists in so many of them in favour of John Dutton. The lord of Dutton claimed jurisdiction over the minstrels of Cheshire. In the reign of John, the Earl of Chester was imprisoned by the Welsh in Rhuddlan Castle. He sent for aid to Roger de Lacy then the Constable of Cheshire. It was the time of Chester fair. De Lacy collected a multitude of the shoemakers, fiddlers and loiterers who were in the town and with this force released the Earl. For this he obtained a grant for himself and his heirs of jurisdiction over minstrels and over disorderly characters in Cheshire. In 1216 this privilege was granted by John de Lacy to Hugh Dutton and remained in the hands of the lords of Dutton through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was the custom for the lord of Dutton to hold a Court at Chester on Midsummer day and in 1498 he received from the whole body of minstrels four flagons of wine and a lance with fourpence halfpenny from each of them. A Court of this kind was held as late as 1756[309]. In nearly all the statutes concerning vagabonds until that of 1822, the rights of John Dutton's heirs were preserved, so that in the seventeenth century the minstrels of Cheshire, licensed by the lord of Dutton, might wander without fear of the penalty inflicted on wanderers elsewhere,--a curious but direct consequence of an incident of border warfare in the early part of the thirteenth century. Few facts illustrate better both the continuity of English history and the toleration of anomalies by English law than this perpetuation of the quaint jurisdiction of the house of Dutton for more than six centuries.

[309] Lysons' _Cheshire_, p. 523 seq.

Some of the legal handbooks throw considerable light on the way in which these statutes were interpreted. In the seventeenth century "The Countrey Justice" was one of the most popular of these books. The writer, Michael Dalton, defines the meaning of the term "poor." Like Arth, he divides the poor into three kinds, "the poore by impotency and defect," the "poore by casualty," and the "thriftlesse poore." This classification was common at the time and dates back to the reign of Edward VI. The "poore by impotency and defect" included the aged and decrepit, the orphan child, lunatic, blind or lame people, or those who were diseased. The term "poore by casualty" meant maimed people, householders who had lost their property owing to loss from "fire, water, robbery or suretiship, &c." and poor men "overcharged with children." Among the "thriftlesse poore" were included "the riotous and prodigall person that consumeth all with play or drinking," dissolute and slothful people, those who wilfully spoil their work, and vagabonds who will abide in no service or place. The "poore by impotency" were to be provided with enough to sustain them properly; the poor by casualty were to be "holden or set to work by the overseers," and further relieved according to their need, but the thriftless poor were to go to the House of Correction. None of these last, he says, are to have relief from the town for that "were a meanes to nourish them in their lewdnesse or idlenesse which take it, to rob others of releefe that want it, to wrong those of their money that pay it, and to condemn them of oversight which dispose it[310]."

[310] Michael Dalton, "The Countrey Justice," ed. 1635, p. 100.

So far the requirements of the law are similar to those of to-day, but some of Dalton's instructions remind us of the difference between the Elizabethan poor law and that of our own time. The poor law was originally part of a paternal system of government: gentlemen were ordered home to their estates, farmers were required to bring their corn to market, cloth manufacturers had to carry on their trade under well-defined regulations, and merchants were obliged to trade in the manner which was thought to conduce most to the good order and to the power of the nation. Workmen also were ordered to work whether they liked it or not, and, if the law were enforced, had to accept the wages fixed by the justices. Dalton therefore goes on to quote another clause of the poor law which has long fallen into disuse. The overseers were to set to work "all such persons (maried or unmaried) as having no meanes to maintaine them, use no ordinary and daily trade of life to get their living by[311]." If they refused the work appointed them they were to go to the House of Correction. Moreover those who refused to work for the wages commonly given and had not "lawfull meanes to live by" were not to be sent to the parish where they were legally settled but were to go to the House of Correction "upon consideration had of both the statutes of the poore and rogues[312]." Already any man between twelve and sixty who had not property and was not a skilled workman might be compelled to serve in husbandry by anyone who wanted a workman[313]. The poor law went a step farther. Not only might an employer require an unemployed workman to work for him but the overseers were obliged to see that he was employed. Occasionally something seems to have been done to put this clause of the statute into execution. Thus in a charge given to the overseers of a division in 1623, these officials were ordered to give the names of those refusing to work to the justices in order that the offenders might be sent to the House of Correction. Moreover they were also commanded "that uppon every Satturday at night or Sunday morninge they fayle not to enquire and take knowledge what labour and work they" (the workmen) "are provided of for the week followinge to the end that if any be unprovided of work they may [therewith] be supplied by the overseers who for that purpose are to enquire for worke for them and to provide materialls for the men that are olde and weake and for the women and children[314]." In other cases we hear of men being punished for "living idly," and maintaining themselves "none knowes howe[315]"; and one of the regular items in the reports returned to the Book of Orders of 1631 concerned the number who lived out of service[316]. The existence of this part of the law and its occasional enforcement reminds us that the poor law once formed part of an economic system entirely different from our own, in which not only paupers, but everyone had to do what the government commanded on conditions settled by authority.

[311] _Ibid._, p. 93. Dalton is here quoting almost exactly the words of the statutes 39 Eliz. c. 3, 43 Eliz. c. 2.

[312] Resolutions of the judges, No. 10, Lambarde's _Eirenarcha_ (1599) after p. 206. Dalton, p. 99. It is interesting to notice that a case concerning the present law on this point has been recently before the Courts. The Guardians of the poor in Merthyr Tydfil established labour yards and relief works for the purpose of affording outdoor relief to able-bodied persons during a strike. An action was brought by, and on behalf of, the ratepayers of the district against the Guardians asking for a declaration that the establishment of relief works for the purpose of providing outdoor relief for able-bodied persons during a strike was a breach of the Guardians' statutory rights and duties, and also asking for an injunction to restrain the defendants from paying for these relief works out of the common fund when there was plenty of work to be had if the men would agree to accept the wages offered.

It was held by Lord Justice Romer that in any case of urgent necessity an able-bodied man or his family ought to have such relief from the Guardians as might be immediately required, even if the necessity had arisen from the man wilfully refusing to work. But when the urgent pressure was relieved, the Guardians ought to require the man to work, and if he were able to get work and still refused they ought to prosecute him under the Vagrancy Acts. It was also decided that though the Court had jurisdiction in an action at the instance of the ratepayers to restrain Guardians from applying the poor rates for unauthorised purposes, still such an action should not be instituted for the purpose of asking the Court whether the Guardians had been right or wrong in granting relief in particular cases. The proper course for the ratepayers to take when objecting to expenditure was to go before the auditors appointed by the Local Government Board or to appeal to the Local Government Board itself. In the present case no instance of relief given except for urgent necessity had been proved and no instances of improper relief had been brought before the Court. The action therefore was dismissed. Attorney-General and others _v._ Merthyr Tydfil Guardians, March 27th, 1899. _Weekly Notes_, April 1st, p. 38.

[313] 5 Eliz. c. 4. Anyone who was unmarried or under thirty even if he had a skilled trade could be compelled to serve in that trade or all artificers could be obliged to help in harvest.

[314] "A true copy of the charge given to the overseers of every towne the 19th of December 1623," Tanner MSS., 73 II. § 390. The document seems to relate to some particular division of a county which is not mentioned.

[315] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I. Vol. 189, No. 66. See Chapter IX.

[316] Thus the overseers of "Idlestrey" (Elstree) report, "We have none that live out of service ydlely or otherwise." See also "Questions touching Labourers," Appendix XII. A. Cases of the enforcement of regulations of this kind occur early in Elizabeth's reign at Norwich. Thus in 1571 a certain Agnes Smith "is to be putt to service," "Meke's wife and Garodes wife ar to be with the select weomen" and a certain Suzan Brown if not hired for the whole year is "to goo to service," the "Maiores Booke for the poore." Norwich MSS.

[Sidenote: 3. The action of the Privy Council before 1629.]

We will now turn to the administration of the law and we will first see how this was influenced by the central government. This action of the central government is important. In London, in Worcester and in Norwich we have seen that the local administration was at one time successful, but it tended to become slack when its original founders in county or borough were followed by less vigorous successors. Without steady and continuous pressure from a central authority on the local officials it seems probable that in this period, as in the preceding century, the laws concerning the poor would never have been energetically executed in the greater part of England. It is this pressure that was supplied by the increased activity of the Privy Council.

We will first examine a few instances of the Council's action before 1629, and we will then trace its policy from 1629 to 1644.

Between 1597 and 1629 the orders in Council and royal proclamations do not differ greatly from those of the previous period; they still enforce indirect measures for the relief of the poor by means of an organisation for supplying the markets with corn and keeping the price more uniform. After 1597 however the orders which relate also to the ordinary relief of the poor by means of pensions for the old and work for the unemployed became of greater relative importance, and during the crisis of 1622-3 they were much better enforced.

Thus almost immediately after the passing of the poor law of 1597 efforts are made by the Council to secure its proper administration. On April 5th, 1598, a letter is sent by the Council to the High Sheriff and the justices of the peace in the several counties of England and Wales. The writers do not doubt that the Judges of the Assize have admonished the justices that special care must be taken to execute the laws for the relief of poorer people and maimed soldiers as well as the laws connected with vagabonds and tillage. "Nevertheless," they go on to say, "consideringe the remisseness that hath bin used generally by the justices of the peace in manie parts of the realm" they send a letter themselves directly to the justices and order that care be taken to see the new poor law "generally put into execution[317]." The writers order the justices when they meet in Quarter Sessions after Easter to take "speciall order amongst" themselves "for one strict and uniform course to be houlden for the due observinge and puttinge in execucon of the same lawes and statutes." They were also to meet from time to time and make the under officers give an account of their proceedings. This letter shows the Privy Council enforcing the whole of the ordinary administration of relief by exactly the same means that had formerly been used to enforce the measures concerning corn and vagrants in 1572 and 1586. It is the first time in which this interference seems primarily dictated by motives of humanity and not mainly by a desire to maintain order.

[317] Privy Council Register, April 5th, 1598. With a note that it was dated March 25th, 1598 "and stayed until this present." The records of the proceedings of the Privy Council are to some extent preserved in the Privy Council Register. This consists of an almost continuous series of manuscripts preserved at the Privy Council Office. They are now being printed but are still unpublished so far as the seventeenth century is concerned. The volume containing the records from 1603 to 1612 is missing. The Register is by no means complete; only some of the letters and proceedings of the Council are entered there.

Again in 1603 during a time of plague proclamations were issued ordering the punishment of rogues, and the return of gentlemen to their homes, in order that they might relieve the poor by their ordinary hospitality and might take action for preventing the infection of the plague[318].

[318] Little Proclamation Book, James I., No. 27 and No. 23.

In 1608 a series of measures concern the supply of grain to the poor. In 1607 there had been serious disturbances in Northampton and elsewhere on account of enclosures. The harvest in 1608 was bad and the Council appear to have feared further disorder. They were careful to issue a book of orders containing regulations similar to the orders of 1587 and 1594. Two proclamations followed. The first commanded the careful execution of the Book of Orders and the return of gentlemen to their households[319]; the second prohibited the making of more malt than was necessary "in order that the poor may have sufficient store of barley to make bread for their sustenance at reasonable prices in this time of scarcity of wheat and rye[320]." In 1608, however, the price of barley was not much affected and the action of the Council was discontinued.

[319] _Ib._, No. 88. This proclamation states that special orders had already been issued for preventing and remedying the dearth of grain. The orders are stated to command the punishment of engrossers &c., and the prevention of the transportation of corn; the furnishing of the markets rateably and weekly &c.

[320] _Ib._, No. 94. 12th Dec. 1608.

In 1621 to 1623 the sufferings of the poor were much more serious, and the measures of the Council concerned both the supply of corn and the direct relief of the poor.

As early as January 1619/20 a commission was drawn up for the due execution of the laws for the relief of the poor in almost exactly the same terms as that of January 1630/1[321]. Apparently the distress was then due chiefly to the beginning of a crisis in the cloth trade, for in May 1620 an inquiry was ordered into the decay of cloth-making in Wiltshire[322]. During the three following years the poverty of the poor increased.

[321] Drafts of this commission are in existence both in the British Museum and Bodleian, and its issue was therefore contemplated, but it does not follow that it was actually issued. Brit. Mus. MSS. No. 12,504, Tanner MSS. lxxv. 175.

[322] _Privy Council Register_, 12th May, 1620. The Merchant Adventurers in reply said the vent of cloth was so little because so many difficulties were thrown in the way of their sale of gold and silver thread and the glass goods of the Levant.

The harvests of 1619 and 1620 had been exceptionally favourable, those of 1621 and 1622 were unusually bad[323]. In Somerset four or five hundred people assembled and took corn from those that carried it to market, and in many other parts of the country there were similar disturbances[324].

[323] The average prices given by Prof. Rogers are as follows:

1619 1620 1621 1622

Wheat per quarter 25_s._ 10½_d._ 25_s._ 5_d._ 40_s._ 9_d._ 51_s._ 1_d._

Barley " " 14_s._ 11½_d._ 11_s._ 4½_d._ 21_s._ 2¾_d._ 27_s._ 2¼_d._

[324] _Privy Council Register_, 8th Mar. 1622. In a letter from Locke to Carleton it is stated that in the cloth-making counties the poor have assembled in troops of forty and fifty and have gone to the houses of the rich demanding meat and money; they had also taken provisions which were for sale in the market. _Cal. of State Papers_, Feb. 16, 1622.

The Council adopted the usual methods; the Scarcity Book of Orders was amended and reissued, and two proclamations were drawn up ordering the restraint of maltsters and a reduction in the number of alehouses; the proclamation of October, 1622, expressly states that this was done because "barley is in time of scarcitie the bread-corne of the poore[325]."

[325] Minute of the proclamation. _Dom. S. P._, Jac. I., Vol. 133, No. 52. The enforcement of the orders is again especially commended in another proclamation issued on the 22nd Dec. 1622. _Large Proc. Bk._, No. 109.

Besides this the special commands addressed to the country gentlemen to return home were more emphatic than in former times, especially at Christmas in 1622. Their presence was necessary for two reasons. English gentlemen still kept great households and relieved many by their hospitality, and they also were expected to maintain order in their districts. They furnished information to the Government, arranged measures of relief for the poor and, if necessary, quelled and punished disorder. James I. had a great idea of their importance: he is credited with the remark to the effect that a country gentleman in town is like a ship at sea, which looks very small, while a country gentleman in the country is like a ship in a river, which looks very big. In 1622, therefore, two proclamations were issued ordering gentlemen to return to the country.

In the earlier of these one of the reasons for the regulation is stated to be because of "inconveniences which of necessity must ensue by the absence of those out of their countries upon whose care a great and principall part of the subordinate government of this realme doth depend[326]." In the second the king expressed his pleasure that so many had obeyed, and his displeasure with those who remained in London because he was "perswaded that by this way of reviving the laudable and ancient housekeeping of this realme the poore and such as are most pinched in times of scarcity and want will be much releeved and comforted[327]."

[326] _Large Proc. Bk._, No. 108, 20th Nov. 1622.

[327] _Ib._, No. 109.

From a letter written in 1622 we find that the country gentlemen were by no means pleased at leaving the pleasures of Court; and "divers lords and personages of qualitie," we are told, "have made meanes to be dispensed w^{th}all for going into the countrie this Christmas according to the proclamation but yt will not be graunted, so that they packe away on all sides for feare of the worst, yet the L. Burghley hath found favor in regard of his father's age and weakenes[328]." The king was, however, firm in most cases, and not only issued the second proclamation in Dec. 22nd, 1622, but by a third in March 1623[329], continued the regulations, so that it is clear this measure was considered important and was found successful.

[328] Letter of Chamberlain to Carleton, _Dom. S. P._, Vol. 134, No. 801.

[329] _Cal. of State Papers_, Mar. 26th, 1623.

But in 1622-3 the orders of the Council do not only provide for the supply of the markets with corn. The poor were as much distressed by want of work as by the high price of bread. For some years there had been depression in the cloth trade, partly owing to the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, and partly to the small amount of coin which was in circulation in England. In 1622 the Spanish ports also were closed to English cloth. The merchants and manufacturers found that heavy stocks were on their hands and ceased to employ the workmen. As in 1527 and in 1586 the lords of the Council tried to remedy the evil by forcing the employers to find work for their men. In Feb. 1621/22 they sent to the justices of ten of the clothmaking counties. They say letters have been written to them setting forth the "decay of cloathing and the great distresse thereby fallen upon the weavers, spinners and ffullers in divers counties for want of worke." They recognise that so great a trade cannot always proceed with equal profit, but upon it the "livelihood of so many poore workmen and their families dependeth" that they let the justices know that they have taken a course with the merchants for the purchase of the cloths in the clothiers' hands, and "we hereby require yo^u," they write, "to call before yo^u such clothiers as yo^u shall thinke fitting and to deale effectually w^{th} them for the imployment of such weavers, spinners and other persons as are now out of worke. Where wee maye not omitt to let yo^u know that as wee have imployed o^r best endeavo^{rs} in favo^r of the clothiers both for the vent of their cloth and for moderation in the price of wooll (of w^{ch} wee hope they shall speedily find the effects). Soe may wee not indure that the cloathiers in that or any other countie should att their pleasure and w^{th}out giving knowledge hereof unto this Board, dismisse their workefoelkes, who being many in nomber and most of them of the poorer sort are in such cases likely by their clamo^{rs} to disturbe the quiet and governement of those parts wherein they live. And if there shalbe found greater numbers of poore people then the clothiers can reviue and imploy, Wee thinke it fitt and accordingly require yo^u to take order for putting the statute in execution, whereby there is provisione made in that behalfe by raising of publicke stockes for the imployment of such in that trade as want worke. Wherein if any clothier shall after sufficient warning refuse or neglect to appeare before yo^u or otherwise shall obstinately denie to yeeld to such overtures in this case as shalbe reasonable and iust, yo^u shall take good bonds of them for refusing to appeare before us and immediately certifie their names unto this board."

The Council also say the woolgrowers must sell their wool at a moderate price, and finish up with the statement of the general principle on which they act. "This being the rule," they say, "by w^{ch} both the woolgrower, the cloathier and merchant must be governed. That whosoever had a part of the gaine in profitable times since his Ma^{ty} happie raigne must now in the decay of Trade ... beare a part of the publicke losses as may best conduce to the good of the publicke and the maintenance of the generall trade[330]."

[330] _Privy Council Register_, 9th Feb. 1621/2. The ten counties to which this letter was sent are as follows:

Wilts.,
Somerset,
Dorset,
Devon,
York,
Gloucester,
Worcester,
Oxford,
Kent,
Suffolk.

This high-handed proceeding on the part of the Government might have been successful if the slackness in trade had been of very short duration. But in this case the crisis continued, and the employers were soon in as bad a plight as their men. The Suffolk justices state that in twelve towns out of two hundred the manufacturers have lost over £30,000 by bankruptcies, and in twenty towns only have cloth unsold worth £39,282. The employers cannot employ the men in clothmaking, but the justices will do all they can to relieve the industrious poor[331]. The reply of the Gloucestershire justices is to much the same effect: they add that the people begin to steal and many are starving. The Judges of Assize also say they have interviewed the clothiers of Gloucestershire, and have persuaded them to keep on their men for a fortnight: they were utterly unable to do so for a month[332]. The harvest of 1622 was again a failure and the distress increased. In December the Council write to the justices of Suffolk and of Essex concerning some "disquiet likely to happen ... amongst the poor sort of people who wanting their usuall employm^t by reason of the badd vent of new draperies w^{ch} gives them their onely meanes of maintenance doe beginne to threaten unlawfull and disorderly courses to gett reliefe." They request the justices to use their best endeavours to maintain order and say that with "extraordinarie care" they have taken a course for the relief of those suffering from extreme need. Early in the year 1623 a series of relief measures were undertaken, possibly in accordance with the "course" settled upon by the Council. Special plans of selling corn to the poor under cost price were adopted, and efforts were made to find work for the unemployed. We shall examine the details of these reports later[333], and will now only notice that they indicate a great improvement in the execution of the poor law; they also record a good harvest for the early crops of 1623 and an improvement in trade early in the year[334].

[331] _Cal. of State Papers_, April 28th, 1622, Vol. 128, No. 67; March 18th, 1622, Nos. 49 and 50. From Oxfordshire there is a like report. The justices of Somerset state that the corn riots are now suppressed, but that the want of work tends to mutiny. _Cal. of State Papers_, May 14th, 1622. The justices of Wilts reply that some of the clothiers have dismissed their workpeople and there are now 8000 out of work; some of them have attacked and seized corn on its way to market and further outrages are feared. _Cal. of State Papers_, April 30th, 1622. In consequence of this distress inquiry was ordered. A committee of the Privy Council was appointed to find out the causes of the decay of trade and to suggest remedies. Representative clothiers were to be sent from every county to the Council, and the Merchant Adventurers were to appoint some of their number to confer with the committee. In May it was settled that if the Eastland merchants did not buy the cloths the merchants might do so themselves, and in October an important committee was appointed to consider the whole matter.

[332] _Privy Council Register_, 18th Dec. 1622.

[333] See Chapters XI., XII.

[334] Thus from Suffolk a whole series of reports record a vigilant execution of the poor laws. In Hadleigh the justices say they have done their best to set the poor to work (the "towne consisting onely of clothinge"). At present (Mar. 18, 1622/3) and for a month past were few shearmen, weavers, spinsters or other workfolk that could not have sufficient work to employ themselves, but they do not know how long this may continue ("the vent of cloth being so doubtfull"). _D. S. P._, Jac. I., Vol. 142, No. 14, VI. In April we hear of the price of corn abating. _D. S. P._, Jac. I., Vol. 143, No. 24.

This crisis of 1622 seems to mark a time of transition in the action of the Privy Council with regard to the poor. The Orders in Council were then more numerous and better enforced than those of any preceding period, though they were only continued for a short space of time, and seem to have ceased when the more pressing causes of disorder were removed.

[Sidenote: 4. The action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the provision of corn.]

Between 1629 and 1644 the interference of the Council is not confined to the years of scarcity but is continued for a long period of time. There are every year important entries concerning the poor in the Privy Council Register, and this fact seems to indicate that the attention of the Privy Council was thoroughly aroused, and that there was a determination to make the execution of the poor law a reality. The years 1629 to 1631 like those of 1621 to 1623 were years of high-priced corn and of a crisis in the cloth trade, and some of these Orders in Council in 1629-31 are of the same character as those of 1622-3. In 1631 however the interference of the Council is better organised than before and is continued until the outbreak of the Civil War. We will first enumerate a few of the measures relating to grain.

The first proceeding of the Government was to forbid the transportation of corn out of the country. In 1629 and 1631 proclamations were issued to this effect[335]. In 1630 the export of beer also was forbidden[336], so as to husband the barley as much as possible. The restrictions were extended to Ireland, a survey was ordered of the quantities of grain there, and it was found that there was a very good harvest. Exportation to foreign countries was prohibited, licenses already granted were revoked, and all corn not needed for Ireland was to be brought to England[337].

[335] May 2nd, 1629, _Proc. Bk._, Chas. I., _D. S. P._, Vol. 541, p. 107. June 13th, 1631, Letters to Justices of England and Wales. _Privy Council Register._

[336] _Privy Council Register_, Nov. 9th, 1630. Letter to the Lord High Treasurer. "We understand ... yt the frequent exportacon of beere beyond the seas doth ... increase the present dearth in the ... City. We therefore require your lp. to give expresse order ... yt no beere be caryed out of the kingdome."

[337] _Privy Council Reg._, 12th Nov. 1630, 9th June, 1630, 10th Sept. 1630.

At one time, moreover, an attempt was made to limit the export from county to county and to regulate the supply by means of licenses. Thus the bakers of London were to have the right of purchase for twenty miles round the City; Bristol had special license to buy in other markets and import by sea. Gloucester, Exeter, and London were allowed to buy in Cornwall, Tewkesbury in Pembroke, Carmarthen and Portsmouth in the Isle of Wight[338]. But this system of licensing proved insufficient, and in April 1631 the justices of the home counties received general orders to remember that the transport of corn from one shire into another was not forbidden[339]. The Government then recurred to the Books of Orders which were drawn up in 1587, and had been re-enforced in every season of scarcity since that time. In Sept. 1630 these orders were amended and reissued by Charles I.[340]; it is to this Book of Orders that the corn reports of the justices refer[341]. These Orders we have seen work through the justices, and require justices' reports. In fact they establish the organisation for the provision of corn that was afterwards used for the relief of the poor.

[338] _Privy Council Register_, 12th Nov. 1630, ff. 169, 181.

[339] _Ib._, April 2nd, f. 431.

[340] _Proc. Bk._, Chas. I., No. 134. _Privy Council Reg._, 9th Sept. 1630, f. 97.

[341] See Scarcity Reports of 1630, e.g. _Dom. S. P._ Chas. I., Vol. 176, Nos. 1, 18, 55, 57; Vol. 177, Nos. 31, 32, 43 etc.; Vol. 192, No. 19.

One other method of the central Government is perhaps worth noting. Other laws connected with the poor were enforced, such as those relating to the suppression of beggars and the labour laws. But these times of famine were especially the times when inquiries were made about enclosures. The enclosing of land necessarily excited opposition when there was not corn enough. There were riots in Northampton and in other places in 1607-8, and in 1631 "a large number of rebels" pulled down fences in Braydon Forest[342]. A great inquiry was made into the whole subject in 1609, and in 1631 also the justices return a few special reports upon enclosures, and sometimes make their answer a part of the report concerning the poor. In Appletree, Derby, very little land had been lately enclosed "for that the greatest parte of this hundred hath been enclosed long since[343]," but in other cases a few new fences had been erected[344]. There is enough to show that even in 1631 enclosures continued to be made and continued to excite the old opposition.

[342] _Cal. of State Papers_, June 10, 1631.

[343] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 185, No. 41.

[344] _D. S. P._, Vol. 192, Nos. 24, 93, 94.

Thus the Council in 1629-30 endeavoured to minimise the amount of grain consumed, to secure a proper supply for the markets, and to see that all laws designed to benefit the poor were rigorously enforced. These measures are of much the same character as those of the sixteenth century, but the orders are much more detailed and much stronger in the parts designed to secure efficient administration. They were better administered, and in the reports sent in by the justices we can see a marked improvement, and signs that the organisation which broke down in the sixteenth century was successful in the seventeenth.

[Sidenote: 5. Action of the Privy Council after 1629 with regard to the unemployed.]

But after 1629 the Orders of Council relate to many other methods of relieving the poor. Some concern provision for the unemployed poor, others deal with the Royal commission and Book of Orders of 1631, and a few have reference to interference with wages undertaken by the Government with the object of relieving distress.

The want of employment in the cloth-making counties again became a serious difficulty at the beginning of the year 1629. It was partly connected with political troubles; the merchants refused to pass their goods through the Custom House in order to avoid paying exactions which they regarded as illegal. The clothiers therefore could not sell their cloths or continue to employ their workmen. Pressure on employers and merchants was a not infrequent way of helping the poor. The Council sent for the London merchants and thought they had persuaded them to buy the unsold cloths[345], but apparently the merchants drew back; in any case "divers merchant strangers and denizens" were summoned, and on May 12th they are said to be "inclined" to buy the "bayes made at Braintree, Bocking, and Coxall[346]." The privileges possessed by the Merchant Adventurers for the export of cloth enabled the Council to put especial pressure on the merchants when cloth was concerned. The threat had only to be made that the trade would be thrown open to foreign traders and the London merchants had to choose between competition from rivals or the loss involved in buying the stocks in the manufacturers' hands. In 1637 there was again depression in the cloth trade, and again the Merchant Adventurers were told that the trade would be thrown open if they did not buy the cloths[347]. Moreover one of the last acts connected with the poor enforced by the personal government of Charles I. was of the same kind. At the outbreak of the Civil War the clothing trade was the first to suffer, clothmakers all over the country petitioned the king for help, and one of the few resolutions of the Privy Council entered between 1640 and 1645 was that the cloth trade should be thrown open to relieve the distress, and free license to export be allowed at those seaport towns that remained faithful to the king[348].

[345] 10th May, 1629. _Privy Council Reg._ "The merchants have been earnestly delt w^{th} ... to continue their wonted course in that behalfe. And upon conference w^{th} the said marchants wee find them inclined and plyable to his Mat'^s desire."

[346] _Privy Council Register_, 12th May, 1629.

[347] _Privy Council Register_, 26th April, 1637.

[348] _Ib._, 28th Feb., 1643/4.

[Sidenote: Relief of the unemployed cloth-workers.]