upon the Queen with an address of thanks, to which she replied in an affectionate and even apologetic tone. 'Never since I was a Queen,' she told them, 'did I put my pen to any grant but upon pretext and semblance made to me, that it was both good and beneficial to the subjects in general, though a private profit to some of my ancient servants who had deserved well. . . . Never thought was cherished in my heart that tended not to my people's good.'1

1 Parl. Hist. iv. 480.

POOR LAWS.-The year 1601 is remarkable not only for the victory of the Act for relief Commons on the question of monopolies but also for the passing of the great of the poor, statute, 43 Eliz. c. 2, An Act for the Relief of the Poor,' which is the foun- A. D. 1601. dation of our modern Poor Law.

In pre-Norman times the State did not directly relieve poverty, but by Relief of the enforcing by legal sanctions the payment of tithes to the Church, it may be poor in said to have indirectly provided for the relief of the poor. In their inception ancient times. tithes were voluntary offerings of the people, made under the belief-carefully Tithes. inculcated by the clergy-of the religious duty of every Christian to bestow on God's service a tenth part of his goods. 'But it was not possible or desirable,' observes Professor Stubbs (Const. Hist. i. 228), 'to enforce this duty by spiritual penalties: nor was the actual expenditure determined except by cus tom, or by the will of the bishop, who usually divided it between the church, the clergy, and the poor. The recognition of the legal obligation of tithes dates from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England. In A.D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that every one should pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the bishop: and in A.D. 787 it was made imperative by the legatine councils held in England, which being attended and confirmed by the kings and caldormen had the authority of Witenagemots. From that time it was enforced by not unfrequent legislation; the cathedral church being the normal recipient, and the bishop the distributor.' By a law of Ethelred II. the tithes were directed to be applied, in accordance with the ancient usage, one-third to church fabrics, one-third to the clergy, and the remaining third to the poor. It was not until the council held in A.D. 1200 that the principle of the prior claim of the parochial clergy on tithes was sum- Indiscriminmarily stated (Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 229). In the Mirror of Justice (c. 1, ate almss. 3) it is said to be the right of the poor to be 'sustained by parsons, rectors giving of the of the church, and the parishioners, so that none of them die for default of sus clergy. tenance,' but the duty was one of imperfect obligation, there being no compulsory method of enforcing it. The clergy, however, more especially the Edw. III's monastic bodies, who, as impropriators of parochial benefices, had managed statute of Labourers: to secure a large portion of tithes, by no means neglected this duty; but unfortunately the blind eleemosynary spirit' which led them to practise and incul- Alms-giving cate indiscriminate alms-giving had a direct tendency to foster that vagabond to the ablmendicity which unceasing and very severe statutes were enacted to repress.' bodied forBy Edward III.'s Statute of Labourers (supra, p. 298) it was forbidden to bidden. give alms, under colour of charity, to the able-bodied poor; every man having Begging no means of his own was to accept service under pain of imprisonment. By regulated by the 12 Richard II. begging was permitted, subject to regulations, -certificates statute 12 might be given to poor men and women authorizing them to beg within Richard II. specified local limits.

Under Henry VIII. the same policy with regard to the poor was maintained, Hen. VIII's but with a great increase of severity. By the 22 Hen. VIII., c. 12, all beggars poor latus.

Privileges of The reviving independence of the House of Commons. Parliament under the Tudor sovereigns, especially during the reign

vindicated.

27 Henry VIII.

22 Henry and vagrants-as well aged and impotent as able-bodied-were ordered to VIII. c. 12. repair to the place of their birth. Justices of the peace were authorized to give licences to aged poor and impotent persons' to beg within certain prescribed districts, but licensed beggars transgressing their limits, and all unlicensed beggars, were to be twice whipped and set in the pillory, and, on repeating the offence, to lose their ears. By the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 25, all 25. cities, counties, towns, and parishes were directed to maintain their aged and impotent poor by voluntary alms, and to set the able-bodied to work; but 'valiant and sturdy beggars,' refusing to work, were to be punished by whip. ping for the first offence, loss of an ear for the second, and hanging for the third. By the same Act indiscriminate almsgiving was forbidden on pain of forfeiting ten times the value of the gift; but an offertory was to be made in every parish church on Sundays, to which the clergy were to exhort the people to contribute.

Administration of poor relief.

Statute

By the suppression of the monasteries the chief support of vagrant mendicity was withdrawn; and under Edw. VI. and Elizabeth numerous statutes were passed enforcing with greater stringency and severity the provisions already in existence for the relief of the aged and impotent, and the punishment of the ' valiant and sturdy' poor.

At length in 1601, the Act of 43 Eliz. introduced regular local taxation for the relief the poor. Every parish was to be responsible for the maintenance of its own poor out of a rate to be levied on the landed property of the parish by 'overseers of the poor,' consisting of the churchwardens, and from two to four substantial householders nominated yearly by two justices of the neighbourhood. The rate was to be applied by the overseers (1) in providing work for all able-bodied persons who had no means to maintain themselves, and (2) in relieving the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other persons as were poor and not able to work, and who had no parents, grand-parents, or children competent to maintain them.

The Act of 43 Eliz. involved two principles: (1) the relief of the impotent and aged, and the providing work for the able-bodied, poor; (2) that this should be done parochially, each parish providing for its own poor. It had already been directed by certain earlier statutes that paupers unable or unwilling to work, should be compellable to remain in the particular parishes where they were settled (i.e. where they were born, or had resided for a certain period, varying from 1 to 3 years). But there was nothing to prevent able-bodied and industrious paupers from resorting to any parish that they pleased for employment; and the irregular and imperfect manner in which the Act of Elizabeth was for years carried out in many parishes caused a migration of poor into those which were better regulated. To relieve the latter from this unfair burthen an Act was passed in 1662 (14 Car. II. c. 12) providing that within 40 days after the coming of any person to settle in any parish, he might, on complaint of the churchwardens or overseers that his circumstances were such that he was likely to become a charge upon the parish, be removed, by the warrant of two justices, back to the parish in which he was born, or had been last settled for at least 40 days. Thus originated the law of settlement, which has been the subject of a vast amount of subsequent legislation and still retains a close connexion with the relief of the poor. (On the existing law of settlement, see Stephen, Commentaries, iii. 175-178.)

The relief of the poor in all its various details continued for more than a century under the uncontrolled management of the overseers, who, in too many instances, proved quite unequal to the duty of effectively working the

Act.

In 1723, by 9 Geo. I. c. 7, churchwardens and overseers of parishes were 9 Geo. I. c.7. empowered, with the consent of the vestry, to purchase or hire houses, or to

A.D. 1723.

of Elizabeth, is further evidenced in the care with which the peculiar privileges and immunities of Parliament were

contract with any person, for the lodging and employment of the poor; three small parishes were permitted to unite in establishing a single workhouse; and it was declared that all persons who declined to submit to the lodging provided for them should not be entitled to any relief. In 1782 Mr. Davies Gilbert's Act Gilbert's Act, (22 Geo. III. c. S3) authorized parishes in which the adoption of the Act 22 Geo. III. should be agreed upon by two-thirds in number and value of the owners and c. 83, occupiers, to appoint guardians to act in place of overseers of the poor; and A.D. 1782. also to enter into voluntary unions with each other for the accommodation, employment, and maintenance of their paupers. In 1819 the Act 59 Geo. Select Vestry III. c. 12, empowered the vestry of any parish to commit the management of it, 59 Geo. its poor to a committee of substantial householders, termed a select vestry, to III. c. 12, whose directions the overseers should be bound to conform. A.D. 1819.

Both the Gilbert Act and the Select Vestry Act being permissive only and Ignorant not compulsory, the relief of the poor in the great majority of parishes continued administrato be administered by the overseers. Under their ignorant administration the tion of the wise and simple provisions of the law for the relief of the poor gradually poor-law : assumed the proportions of a gigantic national evil. The industrial popula- its disastrous tion of the whole country, observes Sir Erskine May (Const. Hist. iii. 405), effects.

was being rapidly reduced to pauperism, while property was threatened with

no distant ruin. The system which was working this mischief assumed to be founded upon benevolence: but no evil genius could have designed a scheme of greater malignity for the corruption of the human race. The fund intended for the relief of want and sickness,-of age and impotence,- -was recklessly distributed to all who begged a share. Everyone was taught to look to the parish, and not to his own honest industry, for support. The idle clown, without work, fared as well as the industrious labourer who toiled from morn till night. The shameless slut, with half a dozen children, the progeny of many fathers, was provided for as liberally as the destitute widow and her orphans. But worse than this, independent labourers were tempted and seduced into the degraded ranks of pauperism, by payments freely made in aid of wages. Cottage rents were paid, and allowances given according to the number of a family. Hence thrift, self-denial, and honest independence were discouraged. The manly farm labourer, who scorned to ask for alms, found his own wages artificially lowered, while improvidence was cherished and rewarded by the parish. He could barely live, without incumbrance; but boys and girls were hastening to church,—without a thought of the morrow,and rearing new broods of paupers, to be maintained by the overseer. Who can wonder that labourers were rapidly sinking into pauperism, without pride or self-respect? But the evil did not even rest here. Paupers were actually driving other labourers out of employment,- that labour being preferred which was partly paid out of rates, to which employers were forced to contribute. As the cost of pauperism, thus encouraged, was increasing, the poorer ratepayers were themselves reduced to poverty. The soil was ill-cultivated by pauper labour, and its rental consumed by parish rates. In a period of fifty years, the poor-rates were quadrupled; and had reached, in 1833, the enormous amount of £8,600,000. In many parishes they were approaching the annual value of the land itself.'

At length, in 1834, on the recommendation of a royal commission appointed Poor Law at the request of Parliament in the preceding year, to inquire into the state Amendment and administration of the laws relating to the poor, was passed the important Act, 1834. 'Poor Law Amendment Act' (4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76). The principle was that of the Act of Elizabeth, to confine relief to destitution; and its object to distinguish between want and imposture. This test was to be found in the workhouse. Hitherto pauperism had been generally relieved at home, the parish workhouse being the refuge for the aged, for orphans and others, whom

Storie's case,
A. D. 1548.

from time to time vindicated. The cases of Ferrers in 1543, and of Smalley in 1575, (relating to the freedom of members and their servants from arrest), and the cases of Nowell in 1553, and of the county of Norfolk in 1586, (as to the right of the House to determine contested elections), have been already considered in treating of the three principal privileges of the Commons. But there was another species of privilege, relating to the internal discipline of the House, the power to punish offences against established order committed by any of themselves,-which though apparently at all times an essential attribute of any assembly enjoying the right of free debate, first begins to attract attention during the Tudor period.

The Journal of the Commons records, under the date. 21st January, 1547-8, that John Storie, one of the burgesses, was ordered to be committed to the custody of the

The work

poor.

'Poor Law Commissioners,' 1834.

it suited better than out-door relief. Now out-door relief was to be withdrawn house test for altogether from the able-bodied, whose wants were to be tested by their willable-bodied ingness to enter the workhouse. This experiment had already been successfully tried in a few well-ordered parishes, and was now generally adopted. But instead of continuing ill-regulated parish workhouses, several parishes were united, and union workhouses established common to them all. The local administration of the poor was placed under elected boards of guardians; and its general superintendence under a central Board of Commissioners in London." (May, Const. Hist. iii. 407.) The 'Poor Law Commissioners,' were appointed for five years, but the duration of the Commission was afterwards extended from time to time till 1847, when, by statute 10 & 11 Vict. c. 109, it was superseded by a new Commission, afterwards known as the 'Poor Law 'Poor Law Board,' consisting of the Lord President of the Council, Lord Board,' 1847. Privy Seal, Home Secretary, and Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, and of such other persons as the Crown might appoint. In 1871, by statute 34 & 35 Vict. c. 70, the Poor Law Board' was abolished and its 'Local powers transferred to a new body called the 'Local Government Board' (in Government which was concentrated the supervision of the laws relating to the public Board,' 1871. health, the relief of the poor, and local government), consisting of a President, appointed by and holding office during the pleasure of the Crown, of the President of the Council, all the principal Secretaries of State, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Within three years from the passing of the Act of 1834 its beneficial effects were manifested in a reduction, to the extent of three millions, in the annual expenditure for the relief of the poor. Some of the provisions of the Act have since been partially relaxed; and the strict and universal application of the workhouse test can hardly be hoped for, until supplemented by an efficient organization of private charity, working in independent but harmonious correlation with the public system, for the relief of industrious and deserving persons in temporary difficulties, who, by timely aid, may be kept from falling into the ranks of paupers.

Supra, pp. 327-329, 334

serjeant of the House. On the next day but one, ar ticles of accusation were read against him, and on the follo wing day the Commons, of their single authority, committed him to the Tower. The exact nature of his offence is: not stated, but he is known to have been a zealous opponent of the Reformation, and would appear to have made use of language disrespectful alike to the House and to the government of the Protector Somerset. On the 20th of March Storie sent a letter from the Tower with a full submission; whereupon the Commons made an order that the King's privy council in the Nether House shall humbly declare unto the Lord Protector's grace that the resolution of the House is, that Mr. Storie be enlarged, and at liberty, out of prison; and to require the King's Majesty to forgive him his offences in this case towards his Majesty and his council.' Under Queen Mary, Storie again fell under the censure of the House for disrespect to the Speaker; and in the same reign Thomas Copley, member Copley's for Gatton, was committed by the House to the custody of their serjeant for disrespectful words uttered of her Majesty. With less regard for their privileges, they directed the Speaker to declare this offence to the Queen, and solicit her mercy for the offender.1

case,

A.D. 155S.

The next case is more important, constituting as it Hall's case, A.D. 1581. does the leading precedent, so far as records show, for the Expulsion of power of the House to expel a member. Arthur Hall, a a member. burgess for Grantham, was charged with having, on account of certain proceedings of the last session of Parliament, wherein he was privately interested, caused to be published a book, 'not only reproaching some particular good members of the House, but also very much slanderous and derogatory to its general authority, power and state, and prejudicial to the validity of its proceedings in making and establishing of laws.' He had previously incurred the displeasure of the Commons in 1572, when he was ordered to appear at the bar 'to answer for sundry lewd speeches,

Hallam, Const. Hist. i. 272.