[242] _Ib._ Feb. 5th, 1587/8, p. 24. See also p. 37, Oct. 19th, 1590. Gabriel Hill, a new comer, was brought before the Mayor to give sureties that he and his wife and children should not become chargeable to the borough. Sept. 1st, 1593. Nich. Cobell had to give sureties, bring a testimonial from his former parish, pay 4_d._ quarterly towards the parson's stipend and a certain sum weekly to the poor. We thus see that the statute of Charles II. did not impose hardships on the poor never before endured. It is a curious instance of the adoption by statute of a custom that had long existed. The custom had been enforced without statutory authority while the town government continued to possess semi-independent powers, but it could not be enforced without statutory authority in later times. The statute therefore stereotyped a custom that had long been in existence in the towns and would otherwise have become obsolete. This practice of preventing settlement has a far closer connection with the social order of the reign of Elizabeth than with that of Charles II. It was a great hardship to the poor, but it was a hardship to which they had long been partially accustomed and which fitted in with the economic policy of the towns. In most towns the right of exercising skilled trades and of opening shops was denied to any but freemen so that many difficulties were already imposed on the settlement of new comers. The organised relief of the poor increased these difficulties, it is true, but it did not altogether create them. But it is more interesting to examine the experiments of the time with regard to the unemployed. [Sidenote: 3. (2) The action of towns with regard to the unemployed.]