[729] Vol. 216, No. 103, May 30th, 1632. From several divisions of Somerset also we have a report which shows that the country was becoming quiet, though the good order is often attributed to the watches for vagrants. "Watches and warde have beene and are continued whereby the number of vagabonds are much diminished and this country thereby well freed." Vol. 289, No. 20. Also from the wapentakes of Stancliff and Ewecross, co. York, we hear there are "verie fewe or none to bee founde wanderinge or rogeinge." Vol. 364, No. 49. Although in these cases the improvement is attributed to punishment rather than relief, it probably indicates that relief also was well administered since neither justices nor inhabitants could or would prevent vagabondage by punishment unless it were accompanied by efficient poor relief. The disappearance of vagrants, the decrease of felonies and increase of order are reported as the direct consequence of the administration of the Book of Orders. Other causes may have contributed to this result, but the reports of the justices from so many places in different parts of the country are conclusive evidence that efficient relief of the poor hastened the time when the peaceable citizen and peasant could work and live in security and quietness. This great belief in the good results of the work and of the relief afforded is very characteristic of the administrators of the time. If the system of the seventeenth century had many disadvantages when concerned with the more capable members of the community, its dealings with the poor compare very favourably with the methods possible in a freer community. The modern philanthropist may talk about being an individualist but he cannot be one. He cannot punish the idler and the drunkard as such directly and so it is rarely possible for him to aid the innocent members of a family without encouraging the guilty. Consequently he cannot deal with individuals on their merits, he can only deal with families. But in the seventeenth century the drunkard was either fined or placed in the stocks, and the idler was sent to the House of Correction. You might then help the rest of his family to find employment or have the young children taught in knitting schools and apprenticed without dangerously weakening the incentives to industry and sobriety. The direct punishment had a good effect in dealing with people for whom the community made itself responsible. It sacrificed only the individuality of the offender and not that of all his family. Consequently there was little danger in the increase of organised relief and it seems to have produced good results. The comments when we hear them are all in a satisfied tone. The Norwich magistrates were delighted with their organisation after seven years' trial and this in the reign of Elizabeth when the complaints were great in most parts of the country where little relief was given.