CHAPTER I

English and Colonial Origins

It was in the reign of Elizabeth, not long before the beginning of English colonization in America, that the problem of caring for poor, sick, and maimed soldiers first compelled definite national recognition and action in England. What to do with the great numbers of soldiers returning from her wars was a chronic and difficult question. The able-bodied and unemployed were given to rioting, violence, and theft; the disabled and maimed became vagabonds and beggars. The queen herself, when she went out to take the air, was troubled with the importunities of "these miserable creatures." Agencies which formerly had extended much relief to such poor, infirm, and maimed persons had been destroyed in the decay of the feudal system and the dissolution of monasteries and other charitable foundations. "A statement of the inconveniences arising upon the dissolution and going [sic] away of hospital lands and revenues," submitted to Cecil Lord Burghley in 1593, mentions "taking relief from the aged and impotent poor, disfurnishing the realm of places to send maimed soldiers to," and "enfeebling their hearts when they know not how to be provided for if they are maimed.” Parliament was compelled to deal with the problem by reasons similar to those which brought about the poor laws of Elizabeth's time. In the session of 1592-3 was passed the first statute "for reliefe of Souldiours."

This English pension law is interesting as a precursor of the American colonial pension legislation of the first half of the seventeenth century. It provided for those who had served since March in the year of the Spanish Armada. The preamble recited

1 E. P. Cheyney: A History of England. From the Defeat of the Armada to the Death of Elizabeth, i, 184–185.

2 Chelsea Hospital Papers, 5.

335 Elizabeth, ch. 4.

that "forasmuch as it is agreeable with Christian Charity Policy and the Honor of our Nation, that such as have since the 25th day of March, 1588, adventured their lives and lost their limbs or disabled their bodies, or shall hereafter adventure their lives, lose their limbs, or disable their bodies, in defence and service of Her Majesty and the State, should at their return be relieved and rewarded to the end that they may reap the fruit of their good deservings, and others may be encouraged to perform the like endeavors: Be it enacted," and so forth. Rates for the relief of sick, maimed, or disabled soldiers or mariners were to be levied in the parishes. The pensions were to be payable quarterly in amounts directed by the justices in Quarter Sessions and were not to exceed ten pounds a year to a private soldier nor twenty pounds to a lieutenant. Soldiers were chargeable to the place where they were pressed, or, if not pressed, to the place of residence or birth. Those who begged were liable to a forfeiture of their pensions. The act was to continue in force only to the end of the next session. It soon met with obstacles in execution. There was complaint that the justices sent the applicants from the place where they were impressed to the place where they were born and vice versa, and that the counties generally failed to certify the amounts collected for soldiers.1

Later acts continued and amplified the statute of 1592-3, and by 1599 the system seems to have been fairly in operation. In the last parliament of Elizabeth (1601), in view of the increasing numbers to be provided for, a new statute for the "necessarie reliefe of souldiers and mariners" was enacted. It contemplated a similar plan of relief, but amplified the details of administration and increased the maximum contribution of the parishes. This law was continued in force from time to time during the reigns of James I and Charles I, and in 1640 its application was extended "until some other Act be made touching the statutes so continued."

1 Chelsea Hospital Papers, 6.

2 43 Elizabeth, ch. 3.

316 Car. I, ch. 4.

During the Commonwealth there is evidence of the defraying of pensions to soldiers from national funds rather than from the proceeds of local taxation in counties. Sums were appropriated out of the receipts from sequestrations and also were charged upon the excise. After the Restoration, a committee of the House of Commons inquired into the matter of relief for sick? and maimed soldiers. Many petitions were presented on their behalf. An act was passed in 1662 which again made such relief a charge on the local rates. But, because of the use of national funds for this purpose during the Commonwealth, the act was felt to be a grievance by those who had been relieved of this burden, and it was not renewed when it expired. When, between 1680 and 1690, England came to have a standing army with the permanent enlistment of troops, it was found necessary to establish a pension provision under some new plan. The method adopted was the care of invalids in what we now call a soldiers' home. In 1681 Charles II announced by letters patent the intention to erect and endow an institution called Chelsea Hospital. This was to be a home for such land soldiers as were, or might be, lame or infirm in the service of the Crown. The public were expected to contribute liberally. Funds, however, came in slowly, and the building went on for many years. The king contributed from the secret service money, and later the plan of making regular deductions from the pay of troops for the support of the hospital was hit upon. In 1692 the institution finally was opened.

Chelsea Hospital was intended for noncommissioned officers and men. At the opening it provided a home for somewhat less than 500 persons, and it contained about this number up to 1816. It is worthy of note that the buildings were designed by Sir Christopher Wren. From the beginning the hospital was inadequate to receive all applicants, and there grew up a custom of making allowances to soldiers who awaited vacancies. At first

1 14 Car. II, ch. 9.

2 Chelsea Hospital Papers, 13-16. This valuable compilation is full of information regarding the early history of pensions to soldiers in England.

there were about 100 out-pensioners, but soon the number increased until too great for the revenue of the institution from deductions from army pay. Beginning with 1703, the funds of the hospital were supplemented from time to time by grants made by Parliament at the cost of the exchequer. The number of out-pensioners became very large, being 13,931 in 1776 and 20,592 in 1789.1 From time to time, when war broke out, companies of invalids were raised out of the pensioners for light duty. Thus under the above plan England was at the time of the American Revolution providing for a considerable list of military pensioners.

Soon after provision had been made for the relief of private soldiers by the building and endowment of Chelsea Hospital and the establishment of its list of out-pensioners, disbanded officers of the British army were allowed half pay. This was done beginning with 1697 or 1698. Such officers were liable to be called into service on the outbreak of war. An illustration of the employment of retired officers and invalid soldiers occurred on the occasion of the Jacobite rebellion in the autumn of 1715. Then the whole of the officers on half pay were called upon to hold themselves ready for service, and twenty-five companies of Chelsea pensioners were formed to take over the duties of the garrisons and to release the regular troops for work in the field.3 This system remained in force for many years, and, as we shall see later, a similar plan was introduced in America during the Revolution. There were also prevalent about this same period various arrangements for relieving the widows of deceased officers at the expense of the army pay roll-such as the carrying of a fictitious man on the roll of each company whose pay was taken for the widows' fund. In some instances mere children received commissions in regiments in which their fathers had commanded.*

1 Chelsea Hospital Papers, 40, 50, 52, 53, 85.

2 G. R. Gleig, Chelsea Hospital and Its Traditions, i, 73. Also Fortescue, History of the British Army, i, 385–389.

3 Fortescue, ii, 6.

4 Ibid., i, 576–578.