The Dissolution of the Monasteries. 281 



even rural poverty obtained a fraction of its eleemosjmary 

 support from other than tithe sources, and so it is to-day, when 

 the irregular assistance of Church offertories and other sources 

 of private charity largely supplement the poor rate revenues. 

 It was because the monastic system encouraged pauperism 

 that legislation was at work, not to formulate a new system, but 

 perfect an old one. The statute of 27 Hen. VIII. c. 25 merely 

 penalised irregular alms-giving, and defined legitimate charity. 

 It was not until after the suppression of the monasteries and 

 confiscation of the Guild lands that a new system became a 

 necessity. So immediate was the want, that legislation ensued 

 without delay, and it is interesting to mark the gradual edu- 

 cation of the national mind to the necessity for compulsory 

 alms-giving. At first the statute book makes as it were a 

 mouthpiece of the parson and preaches charity. There is 

 literally nothing more than this in 1 Ed, VI. c. 3.^ In fact, 

 throughout the legislation of this reign relating to poverty, 

 there is merely a manufacture of the machinery which could 

 set in motion private charity, and distribute its proceeds fairly 

 and justly. One clause alone in 5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 2 introduces 

 the idea, but not the reality, of compulsory poor relief, since 

 it empowers the clergy first to " gently exhort " the obstinate 

 hinderer of charitable work, and then, in the event of per- 

 sistent refusal, to covertly threaten him with episcopal " per- 

 suasion." In the succeeding reign, Mary, probably finding 

 such measures wholly inadequate to cope with the growing 

 distress, sanctioned the method of begging licences in parishes 

 where the poor were too numerous to be properly relieved 

 by the ordinary process.^ On the accession of Elizabeth the 

 whole system of compulsory poor relief is gradually unfolded. 

 By 5 Eliz, c. 3 the bishop may not only persuade the opulent 



' I am aware that Hall am cites 1 Ed. VI. c. 3 as empowering the 

 bishop to proceed in his court against such as should refuse to con- 

 tribute or dissuade others from contributing, but I think these advanced 

 episcopal powers do not occur till 5 Eliz. c. 3, when the bishop can hand 

 an offender over to the civil authorities. Yido, Const. Hist, ch. ii. (foot- 

 note i.). 



2 1 & 2 P. & M. c. 5. 



