Reports from twenty-one places were sent in between July 17th and July 31st, 1634. In almost every case the justices expressly state that they hold monthly meetings and bind poor children apprentice[604]. In the year 1635 the statements are more detailed. Between May 20th and May 30th replies were sent from ten places in eight of which the names of both apprentices and masters were given[605]. Sometimes these were numerous; thus at Blandford in Dorset one hundred and nineteen apprentices were bound in the course of two years[606]; in one district of Somerset the names of one hundred and sixty-six are returned[607], while in all ten districts a fair amount of work was done. Thus in 1634 and 1635 apprenticeship was more insisted upon than other methods of poor relief and it seems to have been very generally well administered. We hear of some complaints but not many in proportion to the number of reports. [604] Vol. 272. [605] Vol. 289. [606] Vol. 289, No. 48. [607] Vol. 289, No. 20. The hundreds of Whitleigh, Huntspill, Puriton, North Petherton, Cannington and Andersfield. We thus see that during the years 1630 to 1639 we have a large amount of information concerning the administration of the Poor Law. We find that a great improvement was effected in 1631. We also find that the area of administration continued to extend into the Northern counties after 1631: the difference is indicated by the fact that in 1638 it is exceptional to find a place without a poor rate, whereas in 1631 the Government spoke of the laws as being almost obsolete in many places. We see further that sometimes the later reports come from the same places as the earlier, and that then the administration continues to be reported as good. Lastly, in regard to apprentices we are told that the Privy Council made special efforts to enforce the law, and that all over the country there is evidence that it was enforced though occasionally without favourable results. There is thus reason to believe that the efforts made by the central government to enforce the law were at last successful, and that the period to which we owe the survival of our English system of poor relief is that of the personal government of Charles I. But we have already noticed that not only is this period the critical time in the history of the poor relief that survived, but in one respect the poor relief of this period was unique. Many efforts were made to find work for the unemployed. Relief of this kind was so much a part of the general system of the time that we have already examined many instances in which it was administered.