The history of the Bills, committees and debates in Parliament in the period from 1569 to 1597 shows very clearly that the English Poor Law did not come by chance, but was the result of the thought and experience of the greatest men of the time. Their discussions make us realise, that in those days, as in ours, opinion was much divided on the subject, and that in matters concerning the poor it is particularly true that there is very little new under the sun. The earlier part of the parliamentary history of the question circles round the statutes of 1572 and 1576, the later round the code of 1597. Between these two dates there were some slight alterations and additions to the law and a decided change in opinion and feeling. [Sidenote: 1. Discussions, Bills and Statutes between 1566 and 1576.] In 1566, we find notes in Cecil's handwriting on a scheme for preventing a dearth of grain and on the definition of the word "vagabond." He jots down the words "bearwardes," "Tynkers" and "pedlars," as if he were the author of the definition[126] of "vagabond" that was to cause so much difference of opinion in 1572. [126] _Dom. State Papers Queen Eliz._, vol. 41, No. 76. See p. 69. These notes were possibly the basis of two Bills which were introduced into Parliament in the session of 1566. One concerned the punishment of vagabonds and loiterers and was introduced into the House of Commons; the other concerned the provision of grain and was considered by the Lords[127]. In neither case did the Bills become law, but it is worth noticing that the question of the provision of grain had been discussed in Parliament as in 1572, and in 1586 the Privy Council again took action in the matter. In 1571 a new Bill, concerning the punishment of vagabonds and the relief of the poor was introduced, and there was an interesting debate on the first reading[128]. One of the chief speakers, Mr Sands, subsequently took a considerable part in the discussion of 1597. He considered that this Bill of 1571 was "over-sharp and bloody" and thought that milder measures would be more successful. If justices would take the trouble, he said, every man might be relieved at his own home: this was clearly feasible because it was actually done in the county of Worcester. Sir Francis Knollys also spoke and was on the sterner side. He would have had a Bridewell in every town, and have had it maintained by a fine of twelvepence from every "Tippler[129]." This is a good illustration of the way in which Bridewell, an institution originally peculiar to London, influenced the discussions in Parliament and was there suggested as a type or model for similar institutions throughout the country. [127] D'Ewes' _Journals_, pp. 112, 132. [128] D'Ewes' _Journals_, p. 165. [129] I.e. keeper of a public-house.