It is clear that in seizing the property of the guilds the Crown destroyed far more than it gained for itself. A very large proportion of their revenues was derived from the entrance fees and the annual subscriptions of the existing members, and in putting an end to these societies the State swept away the organisation by which these voluntary subscriptions were raised, and this not in one or two places, but all over England. In this way far more harm was in reality done to the interests of the poor, sick, and aged, and, indeed, to the body politic at large, than the mere seizure of their comparatively little capital, whether in land or money.
It is not, of course, meant to imply that the injury to the poor and sick was not fully recognised at the time of these legal confiscations. People deeply resented the idea that what generations of benefactors had intended for the relief of distress should thus be made to pass into the pocket of some “new” man who had grown great upon the spoils. The literature of the period affords abundant evidence of the popular feeling. Crowley, for instance, wrote about 1550--just at this very time--and although no one would look for any accurate description of facts in his rhyming satires, he may be taken as a reliable witness as to what the people were saying. This is what he writes on the point:--
“A merchant, that long time Had been in strange lands Returned to his country, Which in Europe stands.
And in his return His way lay to pass By a spittle house not far from Where his dwelling-house was.
He looked for this hospital, But none could he see, For a lordly house was built Where the hospital should be.
‘Good Lord!’ (said the merchant), ‘Is my country so wealthy That the very beggars’ houses Are built so gorgeously?’
Then by the wayside Him chanced to see A poor man that craved Of him for charity.
‘Why’ (quoth the merchant), ‘What meaneth this thing? Do ye beg by the way, And have a house for a king?’
‘Alas! sir’ (quoth the poor man), ‘We are all turned out, And lie and die in corners Here and there about.’”