the pestilence known as the Black Death, which cut off half the labouring population of England, and by a wellknown economic law raised the position of Black those that were left, because as there were Death. fewer labourers their services were more in demand. The result was that Parliament passed the Statute of Labourers to compel the labourer to work for certain wages. That the position of the labourers was improved is shown by the fact that their class, under Walter the tiler and others, raised an insurrection at the opening of the next reign, a thing which their grandsires would never have dreamt of doing.

Suppression of monasteries.

The next great event in the history of the poor was the suppression of the monasteries. There can be no doubt that the monasteries supplied bed and board to those who asked, thus conferring a great blessing on those who could not, and an equally great bane on the idle who would not, work. The suppression of these religious houses in the reign of Henry VIII. had the effect of letting a flood of poor loose upon society; and its necessary results may be seen in two Acts of Parliament-the first Poor Law and the first Statute of Vagrants.

The statute against vagrants in Henry VIII.'s reign enacted that the 'sturdy and valiant' beggar, the man who can work and will not, was to be whipped Statute of at the cart's tail; the statute of Elizabeth Vagrants. enacted that he was to be whipped and branded in the ear, that whoever liked might put a collar on him and make him a servant; the statute of Charles II., that he should be transported to the English plantations beyond the seas. In Queen Anne's reign a statute was passed that beggars should be put into the army, and as soldiers were well paid, they should certainly have felt that this was kind treatment.

The Poor Law of Henry VIII. was modified in the reign of Elizabeth, but the statute then passed lasted until the great Reform Bill. Churchwardens

Poor Law.

6 and overseers were to provide work, build poor-houses, and apprentice paupers.'

It is generally allowed that what the poor can fairly claim is relief for the sick and the infirm, who cannot work, and work for those who are able-bodied, but who are absolutely unable to find it. It is with the latter in view that what used to be called the poor-house is now called the work-house. The work-house should not be made too comfortable, because men should be taught that they ought to support themselves, and not be supported Pauperism by others. In Queen Anne's reign there were in Queen Anne's 1,330,000 paupers, or nearly one in five of reign. the whole population. Men often complain, now-a-days, of the burden of pauperism; but the proportion of paupers has very much diminished. In the year 1873 there were, in round numbers, 890,000. It is thought that this number is too large, and with discreet measures can, and will be, reduced. Yet this is only one in twentyseven of the population. Side by side with this calculation one must, however, place the cost. The paupers of Queen Anne's reign cost 900,000l. in the year, or about 145. apiece, whilst the poor rate in 1873 amounted to 13,000,000l., or 147. apiece. Now, the decrease in the value of money since that time is not nearly in the ratio of one to twenty. This shows, therefore, that the pauper is more expensively housed and cared for in the present day, and probably, also, that he is a more permanent charge; for the pauper of Queen Anne's day can only have been at times upon the parish,' as the 145. would not suffice to keep him more than a third of the year. As some must have been permanently upon the parish, others, who were but a temporary charge must be included in the calculation.

There is no doubt that the value of money has considerably decreased since the reign of Anne, but it is not easy to find the exact figure by which our money should be multiplied. It is said that the price of a sheep was 75., and of an ox 27. This would make meat rather less than a penny a pound. The same observer says that 27. 5s. would keep a labouring man in food for a year. But prices varied from year to year much more than they vary now, because the country was much more dependent on its own harvest than it is now. In the present

day so much corn is imported, that the deficiency of an English harvest can be made up, without a great or sudden change in general prices. The fluctuations in the price of wheat were remarkable: at 56s. 6d, a quarter in 1699, it went down to 25s. 6d. after the abundant harvest of 1702. There was a deficient harvest next year, and prices doubled. In 1706 again we are told that the kingdom was blessed with plenty, and the people cheerfully contributed to the expenses of the war. But the winter of 1708 in England, as in France, was terribly severe; it was noticed that the wheat was all destroyed on the north-east side of the furrows, a fact which points to the prevalence of cutting north-east winds. Wages averaged about 10d. a day. The pay of a soldier was 8d., whereas the French soldier only had 3d. A private in the present day receives Is. 2d., besides barrackroom, pension, and facilities for buying food cheaper. The labourer probably had better wages, but he had no facilities for saving beyond an old stocking. There were no investments open to him, and no savings bank.

England and Wales may be said roughly to consist of thirty-seven million acres; and a glance at The land. the following table will show how these acres were and are distributed :

The staple produce of England was corn. tion being so much smaller, and, at the

The popula

same time, a larger part of it being employed in agriculture, the country was easily able to supply her own needs of wheat.

Corn.

Wool.

The second produce was wool. England had long been a wool-growing country; her meadows were famous for the breed of sheep; her chancellor sat upon the woolsack. But it had been the custom to send all the wool over to the Continent to be manufactured. Many English statesmen had regretted this, but the wool still went over. Then came small beginnings of the cloth manufacture in England. Edward III. had imported families of cloth-workers from the Netherlands; and it is said that, in his reign, the name 'worsted' was given to the yarn made from spun wool, after a small town of that name in Norfolk. In order to foster the manufacture in England, various statutes were made to encourage the natives to exclude the foreign cloth in 1696 the latter was absolutely prohibited, and in the reign of Charles II. it had been decreed that everyone was to be buried in woollen cloth. In old church registers one may find the entry, 'buried in wool.' Further, Irish wool was prohibited, and not only Irish wool but Irish linen. Of course Englishmen could not complain when the same protective policy was repeated in another country, and British as well as Irish woollen goods absolutely prohibited in France. Of the English manufacture Leeds was already the centre, but it was

a town of very different size from the Leeds of to-day. Its population is now thirty-seven times as large. But in our days the woollen manufacture is only the third of English manufactures-that of cotton being about two and a half times as large, and iron standing second.

Cotton was then beginning to raise its head, and the policy that had always discouraged all rivals to English wool was repeated. A statute was passed in Cotton. 1700 (the year in which Charles II. of Spain

died), prohibiting the importation of cotton goods, such as Indian muslins and chintzes. The competition, how

ever, most to be feared was not the manufactured goods, but the fibre imported from America to be made in England into goods; and that business must have assumed some dimensions when, in 1701, cotton goods worth 23,000l. were exported. The amount is now three and a half times as many millions as thousands then.

Other manufactures were still very young. The coal fields were not largely worked, as coal was only required for domestic purposes. That from Newcastle- Manufacupon-Tyne was considered the best. Sheffield, tures. famous for its 'whittles' even in Chaucer's time, kept up its reputation for cutlery, though the manufacture was on a small scale. The French refugees who settled in England, and who vexed the Tories because their Protestantism was not that of the English Church, introduced several valuable branches of manufacture; silk weaving was the chief, but to these also must be added, glass, paper, and hats. All the gold and silver came into Europe from America, through Spain, entering by Cadiz, 'the golden gate of the Indies.'

There can be no doubt, as regards the standard of comfort, that the English people were far beyond other European nations. Ambassadors wrote to express as