But the presentment of offenders was only a part of the duties to the poor discharged at the meetings. Arrangements were made for binding children apprentice, and pressure was exercised on the subordinate poor law officials to properly perform their duties. The justices found out how many poor were relieved and what each received, and they inquired whether there was a stock for their employment[403]. They also, when necessary, urged the increase of rates, the raising of a new fund, or the provision of stores of corn to be sold to the poor at lower prices. The whole system shows how much of the social side of government depended upon the justices, and may perhaps induce us to sympathise with the complaint of the gentlemen of Nottingham that they have "little rest either att home or abroade[404]." [403] The proceedings at these meetings closely resemble those at Petty Sessions. If these meetings were identical with the ordinary Petty Sessions, then these latter must have been held more frequently in consequence of the Book of Orders. Many of the reports, like that of Cambridge, expressly state that the meetings they report were held because of the letters and orders of January 1631, _e.g._ see Winchester, _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 188, No. 101. [404] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 189, No. 42. [Sidenote: 4 _a_. The work of the judges. Authoritative decisions on points of law.] The judges also were concerned in the administration of the system of poor relief partly in the ordinary course of their duties, and partly in consequence of the special action of the Privy Council. It was the custom of the time to obtain interpretations of law from the judges in reply to general questions and not only through the decision of particular cases. These interpretations were given not only in such cases as the imprisonment of Members of Parliament, but also in matters affecting the poor law. A long list of resolutions was arrived at on the statute of 1597-8 concerning the interpretation of that statute[405]. Other questions arose later, and were decided in the same way. Thus in 1620 there was a dispute in the town of Lydd which led to the seizure of the bailiff's cattle and his retirement from the magisterial Bench of his ungrateful town[406]. The query is submitted as to the legality of a tax for the poor which was levied on the inhabitants of a parish for their lands and goods in gross, and on the farmers for their land per acre. Sir Robert Houghton and Sir Ranulph Carew decided in its favour, and the paper is endorsed "The question of taxing for the poor of Lydd decyded by the Judges of Assize[407]." We have already seen that the Council told the justices of Suffolk that it was the resolution of all the judges that they themselves might levy a tax to employ the poor[408], and in 1633 also many decisions on points of law were issued as the resolutions of the judges of assize[409]. [405] See Chapter VIII.