commenced, lasting, with a break in 1694, until 1698, always known as the ‘ill’ or ‘barren’ seasons, and the cause was the usual one in England, excessive cold and wet.  In 1693 wheat was over 60s. a quarter, and in Kent turnips were made into bread for the poor.[356] The difference in the price of farm produce in various localities was striking, and an eloquent testimony to the wretched means of communication.  At Newark, for instance, in 1692-3 wheat was from 36s. to 40s. a quarter, while at Brentford it touched 76s.; next year in the same two places it was 32s. and 86s. respectively.  In 1695-6 hay at Newark was 13s. 4d. a ton, at Northampton it was from 35s. to 40s.

In 1662 was passed the famous statute of parochial settlement, 14 Car.  II, c. 12, which forged cruel fetters for the poor, and is said to have caused the iron of slavery to enter into the soul of the English labourer.[357] The Act states, that the reason for passing it was the continual increase of the poor throughout the kingdom, which had become exceeding burdensome owing to the defects in the law.  Poor people, moreover, wandered from one parish to another in order ’to settle where there is the best Stocke, the largest commons or wastes to build cotages, and the most woods for them to burn and destroy.’[358] It was therefore determined to stop these wanderings, and most effectually was it done.  Two justices were empowered to remove any person who settled in any tenement under the yearly value of L10 within forty days to the place where he was last legally settled, unless he gave sufficient security for the discharge of the parish in case he became a pauper.

It is true that certain relaxations were subsequently made.  The Act of 1691, 3 W. & M., c. 2, allowed derivative settlements on payment of taxes for one year, serving an annual office, hiring for a year, and apprenticeship; while the Act of 1696, 8 & 9 Wm. III, c. 30, allowed the grant of a certificate of settlement, under which safeguard the holder could migrate to a district where his labour was required, the new parish being assured he would not become chargeable to it, and therefore not troubling to remove him till there was actual need:  but the statute acted as an effectual check on migration and prevented the labourer carrying his work where it was wanted.[359] It became the object of parishes to have as few cottages and therefore as few poor as possible.  In ‘close’ parishes, i.e. where all the land belonged to one owner, as distinguished from ‘open’ ones where it belonged to several, all the cottages were often pulled down so that labourers coming to work in it had to travel long distances in all weathers.  We shall see further relaxation in the law in 1795, but it was not until modern times that this abominable system was destroyed.  The agricultural labourer’s difficulty in building a house was aggravated by the statute 31 Eliz., c. 7, before noticed, which in order to restrain the building of cottages enacted that