[509] See Appendix VII., and also the overseers' returns from East Barnet and Elstree in 1639, and from Chipping Barnet and Elstree in Feb. 1636/7. _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 347, No. 67, and Vol. 418, No. 21.
[510] In the North Riding, at Quarter Sessions orders were frequently made for the building of houses for particular poor people. Thus in the Court held April 17th and 18th, 1610, the overseers and churchwardens of Bagby were commanded "to find or provide Alice Cooke, being a poore widowe, of a house." _Quarter Sessions Records, North Riding_, Vol. I. p. 189. On July 20, 1619, also an order was made that the churchwardens and overseers of Startforth shall provide a convenient dwelling house for Ellen Winter before Michaelmas. At the same court the overseers of Easbie were told to collect 82_s._ 10_d._ from various townships in order to pay for a house for two poor men which had been already built by order of the justices. _Ib._ Vol. II. p. 211. Like orders continued to be made through the reign of Charles I. and under the Commonwealth. _Ib._ Vol. V. pp. 62, 255.
[511] _Dom. S. P._ Chas. I., Vol. 330, No. 90.
The parochial system of the time was therefore mainly a system of out-relief and sometimes free lodging, but it was modified by a practice of "boarding out" the aged. It was of considerably less importance than it is to-day because the amount of endowed charities bore a much greater proportion to the number of old who were to be relieved.
[Sidenote: 3 _a_. Apprenticeship to masters.]
We will now consider the main methods of providing for the young. Compulsory education does not seem to be peculiar to the nineteenth century. In the reign of Charles I. all children had to be taught to work and trained to a trade. The method chiefly employed was that of apprenticeship. But schools, training homes and orphanages also existed in which children received the technical education of the time. Parents were obliged to apprentice their children or put them into service as soon as they were old enough. If the parents were able they paid the preliminary fee themselves; if not, the parish found masters for the children, but in this case they often had to work at the more unskilled trades. Sometimes money was paid for the pauper apprentice as for any other child, but at other times men were forced to keep the children without payment. There was often, as we should expect, a great deal of friction in the matter. In a report from Yorkshire, signed by Lord Fairfax, we are told that the justices do their best to find masters and keep the children with them, but that there was considerable difficulty in so doing[513]. Elsewhere there are also hints that the masters wished to free themselves from any burden of the kind[514], but there is much to make us think that on the whole the method at this time worked well. It was apparently the favourite remedy for the time for the evils of poverty. The writers of the legal handbooks insist that it was an especially important part of the duty of overseers[515], while throughout the seventeenth century numerous bequests for the purpose were left by private persons[516]. This is very strong evidence that the philanthropists of the time thought that the binding of poor children apprentice was an excellent way of providing for their maintenance and training. Laud himself was especially interested in the matter. In his own lifetime he made a gift for the purpose of apprenticing ten poor boys of Reading[517], and either during his lifetime or by his will he also provided funds for the same object in Croydon, Wokingham, Henley, Wallingford, and New Windsor[518]. Moreover the Privy Council appear to have specially enforced this part of the relief of the poor and to have demanded and received more detailed reports on this subject than on any other. This action of the Privy Council and the number of these bequests therefore make us believe that the evils of pauper apprenticeship were not very prominent in the seventeenth century. No doubt the fact that it was then the usual custom for an apprentice to board with his master and not a practice chiefly confined to children brought up by charity, made a great difference. Both kinds of apprentices were bound in the same way and would tend to be dealt with in the same manner. The selection of the master would make the principal difference; and the welfare of the apprentice would depend upon the care taken by the administrators of the charities and the parochial funds in providing masters for the children.