preferred to run the chance of capture when starvation was the alternative. Unorganised almsgiving failed even more conspicuously. But organised relief accompanied by a House of Correction was a step towards the solution of the problem. It also was in full harmony with the parental idea of government and the practice of state regulation of economic matters which existed throughout the reigns of the Tudors and earlier Stuarts. The creation of the first Bridewell and the organisation depending upon it was the work of the citizens of London. It needed great liberality: gifts were then for the most part voluntary, and the result shows considerable public spirit on the part of the richer classes and a great sense of the corporate unity of the City by the whole body of citizens. It is true that the liberality did not last; that the isolated action of single towns could not deal with a national difficulty, but the town rulers began to make experiments, to train officials and to create the custom of relieving the poor. They did not themselves succeed in solving the problem, but without their incomplete regulations the national organisation of the future would hardly have been possible. CHAPTER VI. 1569-1597. PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL. A. Parliamentary History. 1. Discussions, Bills and Statutes between 1566 and 1576. 2. Parliamentary history between 1576 and 1597. 3. The Bills and Statutes of 1597. B. The action of the Privy Council. 5. The chief characteristics of the action of the Privy Council. The action of municipal authorities in particular towns, which, before 1569, is the main feature in the development in the English system of poor relief, becomes of relatively less importance after that date. Matters concerning the poor attract increased notice in Parliament and the statutes become more definite and more effective until 1597. An enactment was then passed, the provisions of which, as re-enacted in 1601, have remained almost unaltered until the present century. The leading feature therefore of the period from 1569 to 1597 is the improvement in legislation. But besides the improvement in legislation we must notice the pressure exercised by the Privy Council on the justices of the peace. This becomes more operative and frequent throughout the reign of Elizabeth, but before 1597 it had not attained anything like the same degree of success that it was destined to achieve under Charles I. At the same time local organisation must not be altogether neglected, and now the measures of the justices in the country are important as well as the orders of the towns. We will consider, therefore, so far as they affect the poor, first, the Parliamentary history from 1569 to 1597; secondly, the action of the Privy Council; lastly, some of the more important local measures and the events of the concluding years of the period 1594 to 1597. A. Parliamentary history. The history of the Bills, committees and debates in Parliament in the period from 1569 to 1597 shows very clearly that the English Poor Law did not come by chance, but was the result of the thought and experience of the greatest men of the time. Their discussions make us realise, that in those days, as in ours, opinion was much divided on the subject, and that in matters concerning the poor it is particularly true that there is very little new under the sun. The earlier part of the parliamentary history of the question circles round the statutes of 1572 and 1576, the later round the code of 1597. Between these two dates there were some slight alterations and additions to the law and a decided change in opinion and feeling. I. Discussions, Bills and Statutes be In 1566, we find notes in Cecil's handwriting on a scheme for preventing a dearth of grain and on the definition of the word "vagabond." He jots down the words "bearwardes," "Tynkers" and "pedlars," as if he were the author of the definition1 of “ vagabond" that was to cause so much difference of opinion in 1572. tween 1566 and 1576. These notes were possibly the basis of two Bills which were introduced into Parliament in the session of 1566. One concerned the punishment of vagabonds and loiterers and was introduced into the House of Commons; the other concerned the provision of grain and was considered by the Lords. In neither case did the Bills become law, but it is worth noticing that the question of the provision of grain had been discussed in Parliament as in 1572, and in 1586 the Privy Council again 1 Dom. State Papers Queen Eliz., vol. 41, No. 76. See p. 69. 2 D'Ewes' Journals, pp. 112, 132. took action in the matter. In 1571 a new Bill, concerning the punishment of vagabonds and the relief of the poor was introduced, and there was an interesting debate on the first reading1. One of the chief speakers, Mr Sands, subsequently took a considerable part in the discussion of 1597. He considered that this Bill of 1571 was "over-sharp and bloody" and thought that milder measures would be more successful. If justices would take the trouble, he said, every man might be relieved at his own home: this was clearly feasible because it was actually done in the county of Worcester. Sir Francis Knollys also spoke and was on the sterner side. He would have had a Bridewell in every town, and have had it maintained by a fine of twelvepence from every "Tippler." This is a good illustration of the way in which Bridewell, an institution originally peculiar to London, influenced the discussions in Parliament and was there suggested as a type or model for similar institutions throughout the country. Another speaker was Mr Thomas Wilson, to whom we owe the organisation of the Record office of his time. Like a modern secretary of the Charity Organisation Society he told his hearers that "it was no charity, to give to such a one, as we know not, being a stranger unto us." No statute followed this discussion of 1571, but when Parliament again met in 1572 a Bill was brought into the House of Lords which finally became law. The main feature of the debate in 1572 was a dispute between the Lords and the Commons as to the definition of the word "vagabond." The definition in the Act includes3 (1) proctors or procurators; (2) persons "using subtyll craftye unlawful Games" and "fayninge themselves to have knowledge in Phisnomye, Palmestrye, and other abused Scyences"; (3) all able-bodied persons not having either "land or maister" who cannot give a satisfactory account of their means of livelihood; (4) all "fencers, Bearewardes, Comon Players in Enterludes and minstrels" not belonging to a Baron or other honourable person of greater 1 D'Ewes' Journals, p. 165. degree and all "Juglers, Pedlars, Tynkers and Petye Chapmen" unless the bearwards, tinkers etc. were licensed by two justices of the peace; (5) common labourers, able to work, who refuse to work for the customary wages; (6) all counterfeiters of passes and all who use them knowing them to be counterfeit; (7) all scholars of Oxford and Cambridge who beg without being licensed by Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor; (8) all shipmen not properly licensed; (9) all liberated prisoners who beg without a license, and lastly (10) all persons declared vagabonds by the clauses of the Act which concern the impotent poor. A great many people were thus affected by the Act; the unauthorised beggar, the workman on strike, the poor scholar at the Universities, unless he were duly licensed, and the shipwrecked mariner, as well as the fortune-teller and the proctor or collector of subscriptions. All these were abandoned to their fate, but the clause concerning the suppression of "minstrells, bearwards, pedlers etc." caused a dispute between the Lords and the Commons1. These men took the place which shops, circuses and newspapers occupy in the life of to-day, and their total suppression would have meant a considerable loss in the country life of Merry England. After discussion the two houses agreed upon a compromise; it was arranged that these people should be allowed if licensed by two justices of the peace, and the Bill became law as the 14 Eliz. c. 5. The regulations concerning vagrants are severe, more severe than in any other Act except the slavery statute of 1547. For a first offence, a vagabond was to be whipped and bored through the ear, unless someone would become surety for him and keep him in service for a year. For a second offence, he was to be adjudged a felon, unless he could find a surety who would take him into his service for two years; and for a third offence the vagrant was to be adjudged a felon without clergy and might be punished with death. 1 D'Ewes' Journals, p. 220. 2 This Act of 1572 was at certain times rigorously enforced. Thus at Middlesex Sessions held June, 17 Eliz. Thomas Maynerde, Oswald Thompson and John Barres were brought before the magistrates. On the 18 March in |