Many Houses of Correction were built in the later days of Queen Elizabeth. The "moste parte" of the hospital of Reading was to be converted into a House of Correction in 1590 "aswell for the settinge of the poore people to worke, being able to worke for theire reliefes and for the settinge of idle persons to worke therein as also for the punishinge and correctinge of idle and vagrant persons[258]." At York also in 1584, arrangements were made at St Anthony's "for the punnyshment of such rooges as will not worke[259]." [258] _Records of the Borough of Reading_, Vol. I. p. 403. [259] "The City of York in the Sixteenth Century," _The English Historical Review_, April 1894, p. 288. Bristol, Winchester, Gloucester and Exeter also founded institutions of the kind, but at Exeter though one was founded there was some difficulty connected with it, and we are told that the citizens "afterwards repented[260]." [260] Freeman's _Exeter_, p. 177. Seyer's _Bristol_, Vol. II. p. 248. "This year 1577 was a collection for the erecting of a Bridewell at the old house called Mombridge, where much cost in building and repairing was done and one called Meg Lowrey was the first ill person there corrected." Winchester _Cal. of State Papers_, April 24th and April 29th, 1582. Gloucester Rudder's _Gloucestershire_, p. 190. Thus before 1597 many Houses of Correction were in existence, and, though according to several authorities they were allowed to decay for a time, in the next reign they became general. But these were not the only methods by which the poor were set to work. Pressure was put on employers both by public opinion and by official authority. The Gloucestershire justices report concerning a disturbance in 1586 and say the clothiers were not in fault, for "the clothiers here doe yet contynue to keepe their poore in worke as in former tymes they have donne althoughe it hath been to their greate losses; and soe they are contented to doe as longe as they maie occupie their trade without undooing of themselfs[261]." The fact that this report was made shows that blame was attached to the employer who turned off his workmen in bad times; to some extent the master and not the man was expected to take the risk of the fluctuations of the markets. In 1591 the Town Council of Ipswich went further and ordered the clothiers "to sett the poore on work" within the town, at the same time providing that, if any refuse the work or misuse their material, they were to be punished by the bailiffs[262]. [261] _Dom. State Papers, Queen Eliz._, Vol. 189, 50. The report goes on to say that the clothiers will have to give up their trade, because since they might only sell to English merchants they could not get a good price. They say they were working at a loss of 6_s._ 8_d._ a cloth. See p. 86 _supra_ for the Earl of Leicester's letter to the same effect. [262] Bacon's _Annals of Ipswich_, 1st April, 1591.