You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Elizabethan England is remembered as a "golden age" — the age of Shakespeare and Spenser, of Drake and the Armada, of a cultural confidence that still colours the national imagination. Yet the same decades that produced the Faerie Queene also produced mass vagrancy, a sixfold rise in prices, and the harvest failures of the mid-1590s, when men and women starved in the streets of northern towns. Any serious account of the reign must hold these two faces together. Beneath an official ideology of a fixed, God-ordained social hierarchy lay a society in rapid and often painful flux: population grew faster than the economy could absorb, inflation eroded the living standards of all who worked for wages, and a growing army of the landless poor haunted the roads and the imaginations of the propertied. This lesson examines the structure of that society, the great problem of poverty and vagrancy, the state's response in the Poor Laws that culminated in 1598 and 1601, the expansion of trade and the first stirrings of overseas enterprise, and the position of the "middling sort" whose rise did most to unsettle the old order.
The topic is governed by a debate about change and continuity. Was Elizabethan society the stable, deferential, divinely-ordered hierarchy that its own propaganda proclaimed — or a society being transformed, from below and within, by demographic pressure, monetary inflation, social mobility, and rising literacy? And how should the Poor Laws be read: as evidence of a new, quasi-"modern" recognition that poverty was a structural problem requiring public action (the reading associated with Keith Wrightson and Paul Slack), or merely as an apparatus of social control designed to discipline and immobilise the labouring poor? These are not questions with tidy answers, and the discriminating response — as throughout this course — refuses the either/or and specifies in what respect and to what degree each reading holds.
The organising question is this: was Elizabethan England a stable, deferential, divinely-ordered hierarchy, or a society undergoing profound transformation through demographic pressure, inflation, social mobility, and cultural change — and what does the response to poverty reveal about the relationship between the propertied and the poor?
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y107 (British period study & enquiry): England 1547–1603 — The Later Tudors. It is examined in two ways:
Because Y107 is a period study, examiners reward command of how society and the economy changed across the reign; keep asking how each development altered the stability of the social order and the reach of royal government into the localities. Our sequence groups the material around hierarchy, demography, poverty and the Poor Laws, and trade — a pedagogical arrangement of our own, not a transcription of the specification's ordering (refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording). This lesson connects the agrarian grievance behind Kett's Rebellion (Lesson 1) to the social world within which the government of Lesson 4 and the religious challenges of Lesson 5 unfolded.
Elizabethan society was understood through a rigidly hierarchical ideology, underpinned by the doctrine of the Great Chain of Being — the belief that God had ordained a fixed order of all creation, from the monarch at the summit, through angels and men, down to the meanest labourer and beyond, and that to disturb one's appointed "degree" was to defy God and invite chaos. This was the official theory of society, endlessly reaffirmed in sermons (above all the Homily on Obedience, ordered to be read in every parish) and in literature. The reality, as the table below suggests, was a good deal more fluid than the theory admitted.
| Social group | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Nobility | Around 50–60 peers; vast estates; served as Lord Lieutenants and Privy Councillors; their numbers held roughly steady, but their independent military power declined sharply under the Tudors as private retinues were suppressed and the Crown monopolised organised force |
| Gentry | The fastest-growing and most dynamic group — knights, esquires, and gentlemen who held land and ran the localities as JPs, MPs, and sheriffs; the chief beneficiaries of the monastic land sales; increasingly university-educated and self-consciously a governing class |
| Yeomen | Substantial freehold or leasehold farmers; the most prosperous profited from rising food prices, accumulated land, and could aspire to gentility — blurring the line above them |
| Husbandmen | Small tenant farmers, vulnerable to enclosure, rising rents, and entry fines, and only one bad harvest from ruin |
| Labourers and servants | Worked for wages on others' land or in crafts; their real wages fell across the century as prices outran pay — the great losers of the Tudor economy |
| Vagrants | The landless, masterless, mobile poor, searching for work or charity; feared as a threat to order and criminalised by savage vagrancy laws |
The Great Chain of Being was the belief that all creation was arranged in a divinely-ordained hierarchy in which every person had a fixed "degree." It served both to justify inequality and to command political and social obedience. The concept is historically revealing precisely because of the gap between its claim of fixity and the reality of substantial mobility — upward (rising yeomen and gentry) and downward (impoverished husbandmen and labourers) — which the ideology was, in part, an anxious attempt to deny. The very insistence of the sermons that everyone keep to their station is evidence that people were not keeping to it; ideology tends to shout loudest about what is slipping from its grasp.
The single most important dynamic within this structure was the rise of the gentry and, below them, of a prosperous "middling sort" of yeomen, merchants, and professionals. Fed by the redistribution of monastic and Crown land (Lessons 1 and 3), by the profits of rising food prices, and by the spread of education, this broad band of the moderately propertied was expanding in numbers, wealth, and self-confidence. Its members ran the localities as unpaid officeholders, sent their sons to grammar schools and the Inns of Court, and increasingly saw themselves as a governing order with a stake in the commonwealth. It is this group's ascent — not any change in the fortunes of the old nobility — that most complicates the picture of a static hierarchy, and it is the social foundation of the assertive gentry and JPs who ran Elizabethan government.
The defining economic fact of the period was population growth outrunning the economy. This single pressure underlies almost everything else in the lesson — inflation, falling real wages, land hunger, and mass poverty all trace back to it, which makes it the essential causation point for the whole topic.
| Pressure | Detail |
|---|---|
| Population growth | England's population rose from roughly 2.3 million around 1525 to about 4.1 million by 1601 — growth of nearly 80% in three generations, after the long post-plague stagnation |
| The price revolution | More mouths chasing a slow-growing food supply drove a sustained inflation: prices rose perhaps sixfold across the sixteenth century, with food rising fastest of all |
| Contributory monetary causes | Population pressure was compounded by the debasement of the coinage under Henry VIII and Somerset (which cheapened money and stoked prices) and, later in the century, by the influx of New World silver |
| Falling real wages | Because the supply of labour grew while demand did not, wages lagged far behind prices: the real wages of building labourers may have fallen by around a half over the century |
The chain of causation is worth stating plainly, because a strong essay reasons from it rather than merely listing symptoms. A rising population meant more workers competing for the same jobs, which held money wages down; it meant more mouths competing for a food supply that grew only slowly, which drove food prices up; and the two together meant that the wage-earner's income bought steadily less bread each decade. Poverty, on this analysis, was not fundamentally a matter of idleness or vice — as contemporary moralists so often claimed — but the structural product of demographic and monetary forces bearing down on the wage-dependent. This is the point modern historians stress, and, in muted form, it is one that the 1601 Poor Law itself half-recognised when it made provision to set the able-bodied to work rather than simply punish them for being poor.
Poverty was the most pressing social problem of the age. The historian A.L. Beier estimated that perhaps a third of the population lived at or below subsistence at any given time, with many more only one bad harvest away from destitution. Destitution was not a marginal misfortune afflicting a deviant few; it was a permanent condition for a large minority and a live threat to a far larger number.
| Cause | Detail |
|---|---|
| Population growth | The fundamental driver: more people than the economy could employ or feed (2.3m to 4.1m, 1525–1601) |
| Inflation and falling real wages | The price revolution eroded the living standards of all who lived by wages, turning the labouring poor into the great losers of the century |
| Enclosure | The conversion of arable and common land to (more profitable) pasture for sheep displaced tenants and removed the common grazing and gleaning rights on which the poor depended |
| Harvest failure | A run of disastrous harvests, above all in 1594–1597, sent grain prices soaring and produced genuine famine conditions — and even starvation — in the north |
| Dissolution of the monasteries | Removed an important traditional source of charity, hospitality, and care for the indigent (Lessons 1 and 3) |
| Demobilised soldiers | Men discharged from the wars in the Netherlands, France, and Ireland swelled the ranks of the masterless and mobile poor |
Contemporaries drew a sharp moral distinction between the "impotent" or "deserving" poor — the aged, sick, disabled, and orphaned, poor through no fault of their own — and the "sturdy beggars" or "undeserving" poor — the able-bodied who, it was assumed, could work but would not. This distinction, however unjust to the genuinely unemployed in an economy that could not provide enough work, structured the whole of Tudor poor policy. Relief was for the deserving; discipline was for the rest. The tragedy of the framework was that the largest category of the poor — able-bodied men and women who wanted work but could not find it — fell awkwardly between the two, treated as idle by a society that could not admit that its own economy was the cause of their idleness.
Enclosure — the fencing-off of formerly open or common land, often to run more profitable sheep — was the agrarian grievance most closely associated with rural poverty, blamed (not always fairly) for depopulation, rack-renting, and the loss of the customary rights of the poor. It was the driving grievance behind Kett's Rebellion of 1549 (Lesson 1), and it remained a live source of resentment throughout the Elizabethan period, feeding the anxious government legislation against depopulation.
The response to poverty evolved across the century from punishment toward a mixture of relief and discipline, culminating in the great codifying statutes of 1598 and 1601. The trajectory is one of the clearest examples of change the topic offers, and tracing it precisely is what separates a strong answer from a vague gesture at "the Poor Law."
| Legislation | Date | Key provisions |
|---|---|---|
| Statute of Artificers | 1563 | Regulated the labour market: compulsory seven-year apprenticeships, JP-fixed wages, and restrictions on labour mobility — an attempt to stabilise employment and hold wages down |
| Vagabonds Act | 1572 | Authorised harsh punishment of "sturdy beggars" (whipping, boring through the ear) but also introduced, for the first time, a compulsory local poor rate to relieve the impotent — the decisive shift from voluntary charity to taxation |
| Poor Relief Act | 1576 | Required towns to provide raw materials (a "stock") so the able-bodied poor could be set to work, and established houses of correction for the wilfully idle |
| Act for the Relief of the Poor | 1598 and 1601 | The codifying statutes (the "Old Poor Law"): each parish levied a compulsory poor rate; unpaid Overseers of the Poor administered it; the impotent poor received relief; the able-bodied were set to work; idle "sturdy beggars" were punished; pauper children were apprenticed |
The 1601 Poor Law is significant for two reasons that a strong essay keeps distinct. First, as a matter of change, it established the principle that poor relief was a public, compulsory, tax-funded responsibility, administered by local government through the parish — a system that endured, remarkably, until 1834. This was a genuine innovation: charity had become taxation, and duty had become law. Second, it is the site of a sharp interpretive debate (developed below): whether the Poor Laws represent a new recognition of poverty as a structural problem warranting state action, or an apparatus of social control aimed at disciplining the labouring poor. The most defensible answer, following Slack, is that the law did both — it relieved and it disciplined — because to Elizabethans the two were not alternatives but two faces of a single response.
The Elizabethan economy, though overwhelmingly agrarian, saw a significant diversification and expansion of overseas trade and the first stirrings of the maritime enterprise that would later build an empire — partly in response to the disruption of the old cloth trade, and partly in the search for new markets and new sources of profit.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.