Chapter VIII: Parliament and the Privy Council (2)

But this was only one of the methods in which the Council tried to aid the makers of cloth. Special orders were sent to the justices of Essex to cause adjoining parishes to help the districts where cloth was made, because these parishes were more charged with poor than the rest of the county[349]. Early in May, 1629, directions were given to the Deputy-Lieutenants as well as to the justices of Essex and Suffolk commanding them to see all possible measures were taken to restore order and relieve the poor. It was especially stated that the clothworkers were to be provided with work either in their own trade or in some other good and honest labour, and if that were impossible they were to be otherwise relieved[350].

[349] _Ib._, Entered 29th April, 1629.

[350] _Ib._, 5th May, 1629 f., No. 237.

Already the difficulty was not confined to the eastern counties, and on May 17th, 1629, a proclamation was issued entitled, "A Proclamation commanding the due execution of the Lawes made for setting the poore on work." The regulations for "the reliefe of the indigent and impotent poore, for binding out apprentices, for providing of stockes[351], and for setting the poore on worke," were to be "duely and carefully put in execution." The liability of the parish to provide funds, and afterwards of the hundred and of the county is recapitulated, and means are devised by which the duty may be performed. The "minister, churchwardens and overseers for the poore" were straightway to meet and take these matters into their consideration. They were then to report to the justices of the peace. These latter were to consult together in their several divisions, and at Quarter Sessions the necessary arrangements were to be settled. The judges on their circuits were to find out what had been done and were to make an exact report. Thus the Central Authority set in motion the whole local machinery for the execution of the poor law. The proclamation further ordered that great care should be taken in those places where there either was or should be any special occasion "to provide stocks to set the poor on work[352]."

[351] The word "stockes" or stocks is here used in the sense of capital for providing employment. We shall see that it was usual to raise a lump sum of money for this purpose, almost always called the "stock" of the parish. This was supposed to remain intact. Occasionally the word stock was used for any capital sum possessed by the parish, but never for the ordinary poor rates which were spent during the year.

[352] _Proclamation Book_, Chas. I., No. 109. Record Office, 17th May, 5 Chas. I.

[Sidenote: Special commands again to Suffolk and Essex.]

Some of the justices seem to have doubted whether they had legal power to themselves levy a rate for providing employment for the poor. A few days after the proclamation therefore a further letter is sent to the Deputy-Lieutenants and justices of Essex and Suffolk stating that in their part of the country there was special need for care in matters concerning the poor, and therefore the writers again particularly remind them of their duty and let them know "that it is the resolucon of all the judges that by the lawe yo^u have sufficient power and ought to raise meanes out of the severall parishes if they be of abilitie, or otherwise in their defect in their severall hundrethes etc. to sett the poore on worke and to relieve the aged and impotent not able to worke[353]."

[353] _Privy Council Register_, 22nd May, 1629. See Appendix.

Another crisis of the same kind occurred in 1639 near the end of the personal government of Charles I. The same methods are employed; it is the western counties that are suffering most, and letters are written to the justices of Devon and of Exeter urging them to make special efforts to remove the more pressing necessities of the poor ordinarily employed in the cloth trade[354].

[354] The Devonshire justices are told that people began to want employment "w^{ch} in a short time may (if not prevented) breede great inconveniences to the country." They in consultation with the justices of Exeter were to "settle some good course whereby the poore labouring people in generall may be provided of worke, and that in particular those who more especially belong to the trade and busines of cloathing." _Privy Council Register_, 13th April, 1639.

[Sidenote: Summary.]

Thus we see that during this period the Council put pressure on merchants in order that manufacturers might give their men work; a proclamation was drawn up by its advice giving strict orders for the relief and employment of the poor all over the country; and it insisted in several different ways that in the districts most affected work should be found and relief given. We can see by the circumstances of this crisis something of the nature of the difficulty which the Stuart statesmen had to meet. The social organisation was based on the assumption that the conditions were fairly stable; a poor man had the greatest difficulty, as we have seen[355], in going from one part of the country to another, and the apprenticeship laws were fitfully if not rigorously enforced, so that, if a man's own trade failed, there was little prospect of employment in another. In our own time a sudden falling off in trade causes great hardship to the workmen, and in the seventeenth century the hardship was thus far greater. The demand for manufactured goods was essentially unstable; the social organisation was based on an underlying assumption that work was stable. The introduction of manufactures would therefore cause peculiar hardship to the poor employed in them, if exceptional measures of this kind could not be enforced.

[355] See Chap. VII.

There are several other references in the succeeding years which refer chiefly or wholly to the action of the Council in enforcing provision of work for the unemployed[356]. But after January 1631, regulations of this kind formed part of the Book of Orders of that date, and the Register of the Council, so far as it concerns the poor, relates chiefly to the Royal commission, then just appointed, or to the enforcement of the Book of Orders as a whole.

[356] 15th Feb., 1630/1. Rutland justices ordered to see the poor were set to work. See Appendix.

31st March, 1631. Houses of Correction were to be erected in Herts. without any more delay.

22nd April, 1631. J.P.'s of Middlesex and to those of Westminster. Elsewhere much good had been done but they were negligent. Order them to look after Houses of Correction and set vagabonds to work there.

31st March, 1631. Lord-Lieutenants commanded to see the poor were set to work.

8th Jan., 1635-6. Several propositions for the employment of the poor were referred to a committee, who were to give such order as was fit for so good a work.

15th April, 1637. Inquiry into want of work at Godalming.

25th Aug. 1639. Inquiry into the grievances of the journeymen silk weavers, who complain of slack work and lowered wages, f. 615. All these are entered under their respective dates in the _Privy Council Register_. We shall see when we consider the relief of the different classes of poor in detail that there are evidences as to the result of the Privy Council action on other occasions.

[Sidenote: 6. The Royal commission and Book of Orders as a whole.]

As early as June, 1630, a special committee of the Council itself had been appointed commissioners for the poor[357], but in January in the next year a further step was taken and a commission was issued to the chief people in the country. The minutes of a few of its meetings have been preserved, but these relate mainly to an inquiry into the administration of Mr Kendrick's charity at Reading[358]. Its influence seems to have been very considerable, but to have been exerted not so much through the proceedings of the commission as a whole as through the appointment of local committees, and through the delegation of its powers for administrative purposes to various sub-committees. It had the power to ask for the appointment of local commissions, and it was in this way that it could most effectively deal with abuses in any particular district. Thus if there was a complaint of great distress or if charitable funds were not properly applied, a local commission was suggested. Such commissions were granted for Bury, Exeter, Colchester, for the parishes in and about London, and for Stamford in county Lincoln[359], and would be a terror to evildoers in matters of charitable endowments.

[357] In June 1630 the following Privy Councillors were appointed "Commissioners for the Poore."

Lord Privy Seal.
Earl Marshall.
Earl of Bridgwater.
Earl of Danby.
Lord Viscount Wimbledon.
Lord Viscount Dorchester.
Lord Viscount Falkland.
Mr Trer.
Mr Vic. Chamb.
Mr Secre. Coke, "or anie foure of them."

The petition of Viscount Wimbledon is referred to them on 12th Nov., 1630.

[358] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 213, dated Jan. 1631. This volume is said to contain the minutes of the proceedings of the Commissioners of the Poor, but after a few pages there are few entries relating to the poor at all. There was an inquiry into the hospitals of London and into Kenrick's charity at Reading, but little besides.

[359] _Privy Council Register_, Commissions for Exeter and Colchester were issued 29th Feb., 1631/2, for Stamford 2nd July, 1632, f. 127, for the London parishes 31st May, 1632. One for Bury had been issued before 29th Feb. 1631/2, and further complaints were referred to its members. All these commissions are stated to be issued in accordance with the commission of the 5th Jan. 1630/1 for putting in execution the "lawes for the reliefes of the poore," which authorised the granting of commissions for inquiry into charitable trusts at the request of six of the commissioners.

But the commissioners not only delegated their powers by means of local commissions. For administrative purposes they divided themselves into groups, each consisting of six or seven commissioners. One of these sub-committees was attached to the counties of each circuit. Thus Wentworth was amongst those especially responsible for the Northern Circuit; Laud and Coke were assigned to that of Lincoln; Dorchester, Falkland and Bridgwater to the district round Shropshire; Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Wimbledon to Kent; the Earl of Holland to Norfolk, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the west country[360]. This division would immensely increase the administrative usefulness of the commissioners and was adopted immediately before the issue of the Book of Orders. It was therefore most probably connected with the system then established, and designed to enable the commissioners to bring their influence to bear on the judges, and through them on every justice in the county.

[360] Addit. MSS. British Museum, No. 12496, f. 282. This document states that the commissioners were assigned to particular districts in order that the business of the several counties might be more thoroughly investigated. The distribution was made according to circuits because the judges of each circuit were to receive the justices' reports from the district and then to account to the commissioners.

The Book of Orders was issued in January 1630/1. It is the most important of the measures connected with the poor enforced by the Privy Council. It was not the only document of the kind. We have seen that a Book of Orders for the prevention of scarcity was issued in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and was amended and re-issued in the reigns of James and Charles. This method of issuing a Book of Orders was now adopted for the relief of the poor at all times and not only in years of scarcity.

The Orders begin by stating that many excellent laws were in existence both for the relief of the poor and for the proper employment of charitable endowments; these for a short time after the making of the laws were duly executed, and that in some parts of the kingdom "where some justices of the peace and other magistrates doe duely and diligently execute the same, there evidently appeareth great reformation, benefit, and safety to redound to the Commonwealth." But they also inform us that in other parts of the realm there was now great neglect, and that these orders were therefore necessary. The orders and the directions were given separately; the directions order the enforcement of the regulations of the statutes such as those for the repression of beggary, the binding of apprentices, and the provision of both work and relief. They especially command energy in the matter within the jurisdictions of lords and at the Courts leet. Only two of them impose new regulations. One orders that the Correction houses in all counties should be made next to the gaol; the other has especial reference to the time of scarcity; rates were to be raised in every parish, and contributions were to be given by the richer parishes to help the poorer ones, "especially from those places where depopulations have beene, some good contribution to come for helpe of other parishes."

Eight Orders precede the directions; they prescribe the method of administration rather than what was to be administered, and it was this that was most important. The justices of every shire were to divide themselves so that certain of them were responsible for particular hundreds. They were to hold monthly meetings and to meet the constables, churchwardens, and overseers. From these they were to inquire what measures they had taken in every parish and to hear who were the offenders against the laws. The justices were to punish neglect, and were themselves to report every three months to the sheriff. The reports were to be sent on to the Judges of Assize, and from them to the Lords Commissioners, some of whom, as we have seen, were especially responsible for every circuit. The Judges of Assize were particularly to inquire which justices were negligent[361] and to make a report to the king.

[361] Addit. MSS. 12496, f. 243. The Orders and Directions, but not the preamble, are printed by Eden. _State of the Poor_, Vol. i., p. 156.

It is not difficult to see that these Orders would greatly help the general administration of the law. Some trouble was found in executing them, but the Book of Orders formed the basis of the organisation for the relief of the poor for the years between 1631 and 1640. In April, 1632, we are told that much good has been done, but there are now signs of slackness. All the justices are to do their best and to make certificates to the judges[362]. In October 1633 the returns had not been so well made, and the judges were asked to find out what justices were remiss[363]. In May 1635 a letter was sent to the judges stating that many times they had received charge to see the Book of Orders put in execution. Still in most places the justices have been exceedingly negligent, and the judges are ordered to insist on their doing their work and returning their certificates[364]. The effect of the Book of Orders we shall be more easily able to estimate later, but we can see from the entries made in these minutes of the Council itself how energetically its members tried to see that their directions were enforced.

[362] A minute of letters directed to "y^r high Sheriffe of y^e severall countyes of England and Wales," _Privy Council Register_, April 30th, 1632.

[363] _Privy Council Register_, 16th Oct., 1633.

[364] _Ib._, 7th May, 1635.

Many regulations were made about particular places in time of plague, but to some extent this had been done in the reign of Elizabeth and it is not a new development in the policy of the Council. It will be sufficient to notice that frequent resolutions were passed on the subject, particularly in 1636, 1637, and 1638, and that many of these decisions take for granted a fairly efficient organisation for the relief of the poor in ordinary times[365]. We shall have to consider these measures more in detail when we examine the provision made for the poor in time of sickness.[366]

[365] Thus on 25 Sept. 1636, a collection is ordered in the cities of London and Westminster and in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey for those affected with plague.

[366] On 30th May the Council order a collection for those stricken with plague in Hadleigh, and also for the poor clothworkers who are out of work and have no means of subsistence. Like collections were made for Northampton 10th May, 1638, and for Gloucester 16th May, 1638, &c. _Privy Council Register._

[Sidenote: 7. Interference of the Council with wages.]

There are also several examples of the interference of the Council with wages with the object of relieving the poor. We have seen that in 1629 the cloth trade was depressed, and that the Lords of the Council endeavoured to insist that work and relief should be provided for the workmen out of employment. At the same time they also made efforts on behalf of those who were still employed. In July, 1629, they wrote to the Earl of Warwick and justices of Essex concerning the weavers of baize in the neighbourhood of Bocking and Braintree. Wages were already low, and the men hardly able to live by their labour, yet the employers were trying to force their workmen to make a greater length of cloth for the same wages. "Wee thinke it very fit and just," write the members of the Council, "that they (the weavers) should receive such payment for their worke as in reason ought to be given according to the proportion thereof and also that the said Bayes which are woven in the saide countie are to be made of one length[367]."

[367] _Privy Council Register_, 3rd July, 1629, Vol. 5, f. 399.

In February, 1631, the weavers of Sudbury complained; a petition to the Council was presented on behalf of Sylva Harbert and others, saying the "poore spinsters, weavers and combers of wooll" were "much abridged of their former and usuall wages" by the clothiers, "who are now growne rich by the labours of the said poore people." The matter was referred to a committee with instructions to cause "orderly payment" to be made of the "due and accustomed wages.... And in case any particular person shalbe found either out of the hardnes of his harte towards the poore or out of private end or humo^r refractory to such courses as the said com^{rs} shall thinke reasonable and iust" he shall be ordered to appear before the board[368].

[368] _Privy Council Register_, 16th Feb., 1630/1.

The employers stated that all of the trade had reduced wages, but that, if a general rule were made binding on all the employers, they would be willing to agree to give any wages which were thought reasonable[369]. A rate was fixed by an Order in Council, but the decision was not obeyed. Lawsuits were brought by clothier against clothier, until another attempt was made to settle the matter, and in 1636 Charles I. issued Letters Patent fixing the length of the reel and ordering that the wages of all the workpeople should be raised in proportion[370].

[369] _Cal. of State Papers_, 27th April, 1631, p. 22.

[370] Rymer, XX. 41.

It is evident, then, that in 1629 the masters of Braintree and Booking were trying to take advantage of the competition of their workmen to force down wages, and that in this particular trade both then and afterwards the Council tried to prevent anything of the kind being done.

A bad harvest in 1629, followed by a worse in 1630, plunged not only the clothworkers but the whole labouring class into distress. Amongst many other measures calculated to relieve this scarcity the Council again interfered with wages in order to aid the whole body of workmen.

Wages had been legally fixed by law in various ways since the middle of the fourteenth century, and in 1563 it had been provided that the justices of the peace should every year fix the scale of wages according to the prices of food, and other conditions of the workmen. It has been generally considered that these assessments were either ineffectual or were enforced in the interest of the employers and not that of the employed. But on September 29th, 1630, the Council ordered four letters to be written, directed to the justices of the peace of Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to the mayor of Norwich, the contents of which clearly show that in this instance the Council interfered with the object of helping the poor. The people themselves had complained that the rates had not been properly made for them according to law; the Council thereupon write down to the justices and say that "these hard and necessitus tymes doe require some better care to be had in that behalfe; we have therefore thought good at this time to recommend the same to yo^r extraordinarie care. For the statutes of 5 Eliz. and 1 Jac. having so carefully provided against these inconveniences, it were a great shame if for want of due care in such as are speciallie trusted with the execution of these lawes, the poore should be pinched in theise times of scarcitie and dearth. And his Mat^{ie} and this Board cannot but be exceeding sensible of any neglect or omission which may occasion such evill effects, as are like to ensue thereupon. And therefore since neither you nor any other can pretend any want of legall power to have prevented all just cause of complainte in this kinde wee doe hereby in his Mat^{ies} name will and require you to use such care and diligence that his Mat^{ie} and this Board may not be troubled with any complaint for want of due execution of the aforesaid statute. And so etc.[371]"

[371] The text of the document and the substance of these paragraphs have already appeared in _The English Historical Review_, January, 1898, p. 91.

The fact that the men complained and that the Council so promptly interfered in this matter is a strong argument that both the workmen and the members of the Council believed that the assessments were enforced, or at least that they had a great influence on the wages actually paid. The occurrence certainly shows us that in this instance the assessments were ordered to be made in the interests not of the masters but of the men, and that it was the intention of the Government to protect the men from oppression. It suggests that the justices were negligent, but it brings into prominence the fact that the justices were supervised by the Privy Council.

There is reason for believing that the determination here shown by the Council to help the poor had considerable weight in inducing the justices to make the wages assessments of the time. It was probably an immediate consequence of this letter that the Norwich justices drew up a new assessment, and reported the fact to the Council in Dec. 1630[372]. Moreover a very large proportion of the other assessments which have been preserved of the reigns of James and Charles belong to the years of scarcity, when the relief of the poor was the main object of the justices[373]. As money wages were rising throughout the century, new assessments were always in favour of the workman and would become most necessary in times when the price of food was high; they would also most readily be made when the necessities of the poor were great.

[372] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 176, No. 1, 1st Dec. 1630. "And we have accordinge to the Statute appointed the wages of servants, laborers and workemen at such Rates as will conveniently recompence their paynes and yeld unto them competent maintenaunce."

[373] Wages assessments have been printed for Bury St Edmunds in 1630 (_The English Historical Review_, April 1897); for St Albans in 1631 (A. E. Gibbs, _Corporation Records of St Albans_, p. 281); for Gloucester in 1632 (Thorold Rogers _History of Agriculture and Prices_, Vol. VI., p. 694). One also exists for Hertford made in 1631, _Hist. Man. Com. R._ XIV., App. viii., p. 160.

It is perhaps worth while to notice one other instance of protection given to workmen by the Privy Council. During another time of trade depression, in the year 1637, Thomas Reignolds, manufacturer, made his workmen accept cloth instead of money for their wages. The men complained; the Council found it was a second offence and ordered Thomas Reignolds to be sent to the Fleet until he had paid his workmen double the amount they had lost, and their charges for bringing the complaint besides[374]. The punishment for truck inflicted by the Privy Council during the personal government of Charles I. was certainly severe.

[374] _Privy Council Register_, 10th May, 1637. On 17th May an order was made for the release of Thomas Reignolds as he had then given the weavers full satisfaction.

[Sidenote: 8. Summary.]

Thus in the period from 1597 to 1644 the Privy Council are increasingly active on behalf of the poor, and during eleven of these years, from 1629 to 1640, they adopt a policy of constantly exerting influence to secure the proper administration of the poor laws. This continuous policy seems to be suggested by the exceptional measures which had formerly been adopted in years of scarcity. In every season of high-price corn since 1527 some action of this kind was taken, and every exceptionally bad time of distress increased the extent of governmental interference. The continuous policy adopted between 1629 and 1640 began with a failure of harvest and crisis in the cloth trade, and the earlier methods of the Government were like those of 1597 and 1622. But while the season of scarcity still continued the Privy Council issued the Book of Orders for the relief of the poor, and the organisation begun by these commands was continued throughout the period of personal government.

Abbot and Laud, Wentworth and Falkland, Dorchester and Wimbledon are the members of the Privy Council whose names are most closely connected with this policy. Its effects and success we shall be better able to estimate later, but we can already see that the system which the Privy Council tried to enforce was considerably more extensive than any organisation of poor relief with which we are familiar. Already we know that the poor were not only looked after in times of bad harvests, as in the sixteenth century, but they were also sometimes employed when they were out of work, and that, not only when an individual was unfortunate, but when whole classes were suffering from a fluctuation in trade. This certainly could not always be carried out, but the Council insisted that it should be attempted. The personal government of Charles I. has been more associated with the exaction of Ship Money than with attempts to enforce a system which has much in common with the socialistic schemes with which we are familiar on paper, and yet these eleven years are remarkable for more continuous efforts to enforce socialistic measures than has been made by the central Government of any other great European country. Apart from its success or failure the attempt is interesting, because it shows us the ideal of government which was in the minds of Charles I. and his advisers, and reminds us that these infringers of individual liberties were also, in intention at least, the protectors of the poor.