[470] _Hist. of Agric. and Prices_, Vol. V. p. 592.
But in 1630-1, and to some extent also in 1623, labourers did not pay the market price for their food, and this fact must modify any conclusion derived from such a source so far as the reigns of James I. and Charles I. are concerned. Not only was corn sold under price from public granaries and stores, but it is probable that whenever arrangements were made to serve the labourers at home the prices were somewhat reduced, as the sellers would then be saved the trouble of taking the corn to market, and the expense of paying the market tolls.
Moreover it has often been pointed out that the relative comfort of any class can be better ascertained if we consider the earnings of the family rather than those of the individual[471]. This was a period in which women could easily obtain work in spinning and when children were apprenticed at an early age, and so required little support from their parents. For these reasons it seems likely that the labourer of the reign of Charles I. would be better off than the amount of his wages would lead us to suppose, and this estimate is confirmed by the scale of diet fixed for the boys in the Children's Hospital of Norwich in 1632.
[471] W. Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, Vol. II. p. 688.
The boys in the hospital were between the ages of ten and fourteen. For dinner they were always to have six ounces of bread and a pint of beer: three days in the week they had also a pint of pottage and six ounces of beef, and on the remaining four an ounce of butter and two of cheese. For supper they had always six ounces of bread, a pint of beer, an ounce of butter and two of cheese, and for breakfast every day three ounces of bread, half an ounce of butter and half a pint of beer[472]. As this represents the food of the destitute orphans of Norwich it is not likely to be much better than the usual standard of the poorest class, and seems to compare very favourably with the food of a boy in the same class in our own time. The ordinary standard of living thus does not appear to be miserable, but the poor must have suffered terribly, if there had been no exceptional relief, whenever there was no work for them to do, and when corn was double the usual price.