The authorities themselves soon realised the deficiencies of the act of 1531 and a new statute was drawn in 1535 that recognised that there was insufficient work available for all who wanted it and so proposed an elaborate scheme of public works on roads, harbours, ports and rivers. It stated that all able-bodied unemployed were to report for work at reasonable wages, the alternative being arrest, forced labour and possible conviction for felony. It also stated that any children of the impotent poor were to be apprenticed. The act was finally passed in 1536 but completely ignored the public work scheme. Instead, the government placed full responsibility for the impotent poor on the local parishes. The act was partially successful. It did apprentice the children of the poor, which proved to be successful, however the able-bodied poor continued to be lumped together in one general category and it was still assumed that work was available for all who generally sought it.
It appears that the government at this point started to take a more active role to prevent poverty and vagrancy, although the explanation for these developments lies in the fear of insurrection. All the acts in this period were passed after a national crisis that the government feared would lead to public disruption and uprisings. By appearing to help the poor the government did in fact benefit as they won the support of the people and became safer from the threat of insurrection e.g. Northern Rebellion.
After Edward V1 acceded to the throne, the House of Commons passes yet another statute in 1547 as there was now an even greater fear of insurrection during the first years of his reign. The act took a backwards step towards punitive measures in dealing with poverty and vagrancy, it said that for a first conviction the felon was prescribed two years with penalties leading to life long slavery or death. And any man or woman who lacked worked for a period of 3 days or more was named a vagrant, branded with a ‘V’ and given as a slave, to their reporter. A runaway could be enslaved for life on a first attempt and executed for a second. However multiple authorities did not particularly like putting people into slavery and so this action was not carried out. There were also some positive points about the act which proved to be beneficial as any children of the poor were to be apprenticed, impotent beggars were to be sent to places of settlement and were allowed someone to beg for them. It was obviously distressing to be separated from their mothers and fathers, but slavery is perhaps not the most appropriate word to use where children were concerned. It could be stated the children did in fact benefit as they were guaranteed regular meals and clothing and if they showed any aptitude at all for their new trade they were at least given the possibility of secure employment in the future. However the act was more than the authorities could stomach. The parish constable was quite prepared to beat the really recalcitrant beggar send him on his way, but to condemn a man to slavery for life was another thing entirely. In 1550 it was repeated and the act of 1531 was revived in its stead.
In 1552 there was an attempt made by the government to raise funds for the poor, pressure was put on unwilling tax payers as it was not yet compulsory. Throughout the Tudor period the main funds for the poor came from charitable authorities such as the church and merchants. Since the reformation merchants played a large role in raising money for the poor, although they like the government were probably not doing out of kindness, but security, again the government benefited.
When Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558, the parliamentary attitude to poor relief had changed little since the days of her father. The main act governing the county actions remained that of 1531. It distinguished between the able-bodied vagrants who were to be whipped and the impotent beggar who was to be relieved, but made no provision whatsoever for the man who desperately desired to be employed but had no job to go to. The governmental mind continued to be haunted by the fear of insurrection. It was at this juncture that the government took its first positive steps in the direction of a compulsory rate for the relief for the poor.
Another act was passed in 1563, which followed the steps taken by larger cities such as London, Norwich and Ipswich. Also in the same year, the statute of artificer was passed. It dealt with the occupation a man could follow the training and the wages he could be paid. Those eligible for employment in one of the numerous industrial crafts were ordered to serve a 7-year apprentices. The main objective was to maintain high standards of craftsmanship and to confine industrial activity to the guild system. Such a stipulation should have tied a man permanently to one trade, for few would wish to serve a second 7 year period. Both local and central authorities and the recorded cases of wage assessments apparently neglected the enforcement of apprenticeship itself by both local justices of the peace and magistrates were few and far between.
The acts passed during these years were successful in suppressing vagrancy, however it did little to get to the root of the problem, poverty. The government was still in fear of insurrection, which is evident within the next piece of legislation passed the act of 1571, which was extremely severe and once again punitive. It ordained, ‘whipping and boring through the ear for the first offence, condemnation as a felon for the second, and the death penalty for the third. There is evidence that shows us that these punishments unlike many previous, were in fact carried out. Despite the severity of this act it can be regarded as a ‘watershed in the poor law history of the 16th century’. As it looked forward in recognising the presence of the able-bodied man looking for work. The act also realised that some poor were so through no fault of their own and allowed these, as long as they were fully licensed to be exempt from the punishments, although they continued to provide them with no provisions. The act also recognised the need for compulsory taxation in order to provide funds for the poor, local people were expected to run the scheme but was not paid for their duties.
The acts of 1572 and 1576 between them provided a workable system of poor relief. The knowledge that work was available if it was required must have turned many of poor mans thoughts away from vagrancy. Although benefiting the ‘poor orders’ it also benefited the government as it would have reduced the fear of insurrection, as it would have led to some diminution of the numbers roaming the countryside.
The harvest had an impact on the passing of legislation during the 16th century much being passed after bad harvests and food shortages, however the government did make an attempt to keep down the prices of food such as corn, probably in an effort to keep down rioting. As stated by Paul slack, ‘the wisdom of their policy was never more clearly illustrated than in the latter year when food riots broke out in the West Country’. Bread was baked from the poor and merchants contributed food in some cities in order to help those living in poverty. Although the government still seemed to be using punitive measures as a way of controlling the vagrant classes, after a good harvest in 1562 it passed a act removing the clauses relating to death, imprisonment and boring through the ear, instead the punishments of the 1531 act were reintroduced. Although the government attempted to provide provision for the poor during bad harvests there were still food riots which once again made the government fear insurrection that did actually occur in some countries. After these food shortages the government realised that there were thousands of unemployed people through no fault of their own who wanted work and that in the future they would have to provide provision for this. During discussions following the crisis seventeen bills were passed, eleven of which dealt directly with poverty and vagrancy in an attempt to benefit the ‘lower orders’.
The first of many statutes stated that vagabonds be ‘whipped until bloody and then returned by the most direct route to their place of origin’ and be placed in almshouses. The next piece of legislation passed was ‘an act for the relief of the poor’ which gathered together almost century worth of legislation from the experience of trial and error. The government was beginning to understand the causes of poverty and deal with them rather than dealing with its symptoms punitively. The act provided apprenticeships for men until they were 24 and women until they were 21; this proved to be beneficial to the ‘lower orders’.
The act remained in force for almost two hundred and fifty years; the statute of 1601 was a re-enactment of the 1597-8 act with a few alterations. Two further acts, one for the erection of hospitals or workhouses for the poor and the other for defining the law of charitable trusts, completed the Elizabethan legislation in this respect. Both recognised the importance of the private charity as a valuable, indeed as essential supplement to the laws passes by the central government. As John Pound stated, ‘the importance of private charity in relieving the poor can hardly be exaggerated’. When all is said and done it is undeniable that the role of private charity in relieving the poor and not only in relieving them but in preventing others from sliding into the same abyss was paramount in Tudor England. Without the generosity of the monarch class Tudor governments would have found the problem of poor relief far more onerous than in fact it was and the burden may have become insupportable.
Therefore, Tudor government had little to deal with poverty. Its action had been limited to acts to the cloth trade and the punishment of beggars. All the legislation reflects the action of the government cautiously groping its way towards a method that would at once remove the threat of insurrection and provide adequate care for all categories of the poor. The Tudors were not prepared to innovate in this respect. They wanted proof that methods were workable before they introduced them, the larger towns, particularly those of London and Norwich anticipated governmental legislation in almost every respect and provided visible evidence of the success of more humane methods of poor relief.
Ideally, this ‘freezing’ of the agricultural situation as it was at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign should have been beneficial to the poor. Protection from the evils of enclosure, assuming that such evils did in fact exist, coupled with effective legislation can only have been beneficial to the increasing number of rural wage earners, but in reality such a scheme was a non-started from the outset. Men against whose own self-interest its prescription ran, surely with full knowledge that it was unenforceable, in such circumstances its efforts must have been minimal’ passed it.
