THE ACT OF 1601 433 



aside altogether. The churchwardens, and four "substantial householders, 

 to be called overseers of the poor," are empowered to raise the necessary 

 funds by taxation of " every inhabitant and every occupier of lands " in the 

 parish, " according to the ability of the same parish." If anyone refuses to 

 contribute as he is assessed, distress is to be levied, and in default of distress 

 imprisonment is to be inflicted. The better known Act of 1601 (43 Eliz. c. 2) 

 is a repetition of its predecessor, except that it gives a more precise definition 

 of the sources from which the money is to be raised. The overseers are to 

 raise the funds " by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, 

 and of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, or propriations 

 of tithes, coal mines, and saleable underwood." 



Under the Act of Elizabeth, not only every occupier, but every inhabitant 

 was required to contribute, and the measure of his liability was, not the 

 annual rental value of the immovable property which he occupied, but his 

 ability to pay. In modern practice, inhabitants, as such, except parsons and 

 vicars, escape payment, and the accepted criterion of ability to pay is rental 

 value. It was nearly two centuries and a half before these two changes 

 were completed. 



In the seventeenth century, the annual rent, which traders, manufacturers, 

 or farmers paid for their shops, factories, or farms, was probably the best 

 guide to an estimate of their business profits. It was at least more satis- 

 factory than the estimate which their neighbours might form of those profits. 

 Very few years had, therefore, passed before rental value was generally 

 accepted as practical evidence of an occupier's ability to pay. The other 

 change was slower and more gradual. Inhabitants continued liable till a 

 much later date. The earnings of labour, whether fees, salaries, or wages, 

 went first. The rent of landlords escaped next. 1 Personal property and the 

 profits of stock-in-trade were not fully relieved till 1840 (3 and 4 Victoria, c. 89). 

 That Act provides that it shall not be lawful for the overseers of any parish, 

 " township, or village to tax any inhabitant thereof, as such inhabitant, in 

 respect of his ability derived from the profits of stock-in-trade or any other 

 property, for or towards the relief of the poor." Since 1840, this measure 

 has been renewed from year to year. 



2. THE EXPENDITURE OP THE FUNDS RAISED FOR POOR RELIEF. 



From mediaeval times two distinct classes of the poor had to be dealt with 

 the impotent, and the able-bodied. Each class fell into two subdivisions ; 

 the impotent into children, or the aged, sick, and infirm ; the able-bodied 

 into sturdy roguec and vagabonds, or the honest poor, " willing to worcke " 

 but unable to find employment. Early legislators seem to have recognised 

 that poverty is a relative condition implying the want of comforts habitual 

 to any particular class, and that destitution is the absolute state of wanting 

 the necessaries of life. They accepted as a moral duty the direct relief of 

 the destitute ; they did not encourage public aid to the unconditional relief 

 of poverty. They also discriminated between voluntary and involuntary 

 indigence. They distinguished those who are indigent owing to their own 

 conduct from those who are reduced to want by causes for which they them- 

 selves are not responsible. Thus the impotent poor were to be succoured 

 and relieved. The able-bodied were treated on different lines, and each of 

 the two divisions into which the class falls was differently handled. Untold 

 misery might have been saved, if the original principles of poor relief had been 

 more strictly maintained ; their gradual relaxation, culminating in the years 

 1795-1834, sums up the history of the Poor Law from Elizabeth to William IV. 



The relief of the impotent poor affects agricultural labour only indirectly. 

 For this reason it will not be specially discussed here. It will be enough to 



i Sir Anthony Earby's case, 1633, 

 2E 



