Harvest Failure, Social Distress and a General Crisis in Government (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Harvest Failure, Social Distress and a General Crisis in Government
Introduction: Government response to the 1590s crisis
During the 1590s, England faced a series of poor harvests that created significant social and economic problems. While government measures passed in the 1597 parliament could not directly address the harvest failures themselves (which improved naturally after 1598), these laws demonstrated a serious attempt to respond to the decade's challenges. The parliamentary response in 1597 revealed deep concern among both central government and local authorities about the potential for social and economic breakdown. However, historians debate whether the government's fears about widespread social disorder were truly justified.
The government's legislative response in 1597 came at the peak of the crisis, demonstrating that even though they could not control the weather or harvests, they attempted to mitigate the social consequences through parliamentary action.
The extent of the crisis: How serious were the problems?
Severity of social and economic hardship
The social and economic problems of the 1590s posed genuine challenges for Elizabeth's government. Several factors combined to create a sense of general malaise (a feeling of unease):
- England was at war with Spain, requiring high levels of taxation
- Elizabeth was ageing, creating political uncertainty about the succession
- The political environment was unsettled by faction fighting at court
- Social and economic hardship intensified these existing pressures
Geographic variations in impact
The effects of harvest failure were not evenly distributed across England. Some regions suffered far more severely than others:
Worst-affected areas:
- Rural uplands of the north - experienced genuine dearth (starvation) and severe food shortages
- South-west regions - similarly suffered disproportionately
- Small towns - lacked the trading routes and economic resources to support their poor populations during hardship
Less-affected areas:
- Central Midlands - experienced less severe starvation
- Eastern England - largely escaped the worst effects
- South-east parishes - remained relatively stable
- London - although it saw food riots and plague, the capital escaped the worst food shortages because it could import grain from the Baltic, which was not affected by the European-wide dearth
- Larger towns - could more easily stockpile food and distribute it to those most in need
The geographic disparity in suffering reveals that England's crisis was not uniform. Access to trade routes, particularly for importing Baltic grain, proved crucial in determining which areas could weather the harvest failures most effectively.
Government fears about social breakdown
The spread of riots and popular discontent caused by food shortages particularly alarmed the authorities. The government's response to the Oxfordshire rising revealed their deep anxiety. Several factors intensified official fears:
- Rioters looked back to the 'commotion time' of 1549 as a model for their actions
- Some protesters wanted to emulate Kett's Rebellion, which had specifically targeted social superiors
- The authorities feared complete social breakdown, with the poor rising up against the wealthy
The government's paranoia about rebellion was rooted in historical memory. The rebellions of 1549, particularly Kett's Rebellion, had demonstrated the potential for organised popular uprisings to challenge social hierarchies. These memories shaped how officials interpreted even minor disturbances in the 1590s.
Were government fears justified? Reality versus paranoia
Changes in social structure since 1549
Despite government alarm, their fears stemmed more from paranoia and rumour than from genuine risk of widespread rebellion. Important differences existed between the problems of 1549 and those of the 1590s:
Key change: Wealthier husbandmen (farmers with small landholdings) had become more prosperous and better educated by the 1590s. Unlike in 1549, these middling farmers now tended to:
- Participate in local government rather than protest against it
- Side with the authorities rather than with rebels
- Support social order rather than challenge it
Impact on riots:
- The Oxfordshire rising and riots of 1595-96 involved only the very poorest members of society
- Higher-ranking individuals did not join the protests
- Without leadership from more prosperous groups, riots lacked organisation and were easily suppressed
- However, these disturbances still frightened the government into taking action
This fundamental shift in social structure was crucial. The emergence of a more prosperous "middling sort" who identified with the authorities rather than with the poor meant that 1590s protests lacked the cross-class support that had made earlier rebellions so dangerous. The government's fears were based on outdated assumptions about social dynamics.
Comparing mortality rates: 1590s versus 1550s
Although mortality rates increased during the 1590s, the crisis was nowhere near as severe as that of the 1550s:
1550s crisis:
- Approximately six percent of the population died
- Led to an actual decline in England's total population
- Created a genuine demographic catastrophe
1590s crisis:
- Death rates rose but remained much lower than in the 1550s
- England's total population continued to grow throughout the decade
- No overall population decline occurred
Mortality Comparison: A Critical Perspective
The demographic evidence reveals that while the 1590s crisis caused real suffering, it was fundamentally different from the 1550s catastrophe. The continued population growth during the 1590s suggests the crisis, though serious in some regions, did not threaten England's overall demographic stability.
Possible explanation: Historians suggest the poor may have been able to switch to other, cheaper grains, reducing their vulnerability to starvation. However, this substitution had the unintended effect of pushing up food prices even further.
Assessment of the crisis
The string of poor harvests in the mid-1590s undoubtedly created a temporary crisis in some parts of England. However, several factors limited its severity:
- Effects were not felt equally across all regions
- The situation improved after 1598-99
- Changes to social structure discouraged the type of popular revolt seen earlier in the century
- While Elizabeth's government genuinely feared a crisis threatening social stability, the actual threat was less serious than they believed
The broader context: Was there a general crisis of government?
Evidence supporting the crisis interpretation
Several factors suggest Elizabeth's government faced a genuine crisis in her final years:
Corruption and greed: The government came under increasing criticism for corruption and the excessive wealth of courtiers. The monopolies debates of 1597 and 1601 reflected broader discontent with court power and privilege.
Monopolies were exclusive rights granted by the crown to individuals or groups to control the production or sale of particular goods. By the 1590s, these had become deeply unpopular as they drove up prices and enriched courtiers at the expense of ordinary people.
War pressures: The long and costly war with Spain (lasting the final 18 years of Elizabeth's reign) created significant burdens:
- Local communities resented having to provide money, equipment and men
- Some historians argue this created a divide between the 'court' and the 'country' (local communities)
- This resentment over government demands might have contributed to the later civil war in the 17th century
Timing of monopolies debates: It was no accident that parliamentary attacks on monopolies coincided with social and economic hardship. Monopolies on basic commodities like salt drove up prices precisely when food shortages were causing real suffering. MPs who complained in parliament represented communities experiencing these hardships, and their fear of social unrest led them to attack the 'bloodsuckers' - those seen as parasites on the English economy and government.
The convergence of economic hardship and monopolies debates reveals how interconnected England's problems were. When people were struggling to afford food, the additional burden of inflated prices on basic commodities due to monopolies made the situation intolerable and gave MPs powerful grievances to raise in parliament.
Elizabeth's declining leadership: The queen's ability to manage her realm and ministers was weakening:
- She allowed the Cecils to dominate patronage
- She permitted Essex's ambition, arrogance and resentment to grow unchecked
- She misjudged parliament's mood in 1597
- She faced an outburst of parliamentary anger in 1601
Military stalemate: Elizabeth's cautious approach to military campaigns meant:
- England achieved several important victories but could not gain the upper hand against Spain
- Her reluctance to commit large amounts of men and money to any single campaign prevented decisive success
- England did not lose, but could not win either, so the war dragged on inconclusively
Arguments against the crisis interpretation
Despite these problems, the case for a fundamental crisis in government can be overstated:
No major popular rebellion: Despite severe economic conditions in the 1590s, no large-scale popular uprising occurred. The majority of England's population preferred to:
- Remain within the law
- Voice complaints through legal channels, such as parliament
- Work within the system rather than rebel against it
The System Held: Why Government Continued to Function
The absence of major rebellion is perhaps the most powerful argument against the "crisis" interpretation. Even under significant economic and political pressure, England's political system proved remarkably resilient. This resilience stemmed from several key factors that distinguished the 1590s from genuinely revolutionary periods.
Continued functioning of government: Although local communities grumbled about the economic burdens of war:
- Men and money continued to be raised
- Government did not grind to a halt
- Local leaders (Lord Lieutenants and gentry) did not rebel against government demands
Effective local government: Late-Elizabethan local government worked successfully because Elizabeth appointed the same people to positions of local command as to her Privy Council:
- Even though she outlived her most trusted advisers, the system continued to function
- Local and central government were linked through men such as the Cecils
- JPs (Justices of the Peace) like Hext kept the government informed of local concerns
- This information flow reduced the likelihood of revolt because the Privy Council knew what was happening (even if they sometimes panicked, as with the Oxfordshire rising)
The integration of local and central government created a communication network that proved crucial for stability. When the same individuals held positions at both local and national levels, they could convey local grievances upward while ensuring royal commands were implemented downward. This dual role made the system more responsive and reduced the chance of complete breakdown.
Elizabeth's political skills: The queen had not completely lost her touch:
- She successfully soothed the parliament of 1601 by eliminating the worst monopolies while preserving her prerogative (royal powers)
- Parliamentary complaints aimed to make the government aware of problems rather than seriously challenge royal power
- Parliament still granted Elizabeth taxation
Absence of serious plots: Although faction fighting and succession uncertainty existed, there were no serious attempts to overthrow Elizabeth, apart from Essex's failed coup, which attracted:
- No popular support outside his small circle of friends
- No backing from other nobles
Peaceful succession: In 1603, James VI's accession to the English throne was completely peaceful and widely accepted. The fact that rebellion and civil war were avoided suggests Elizabeth and her government remained ultimately in control of events.
The peaceful succession of 1603 provides retrospective evidence that the government crisis, if it existed, was not fundamental. A truly failing regime would likely have faced succession disputes, rival claimants, or even civil war. Instead, the transition was remarkably smooth, suggesting underlying governmental stability.
Key Points to Remember:
- The harvest failures of the mid-1590s created a temporary crisis in some parts of England, but effects varied greatly by region
- Government fears about social breakdown were driven more by paranoia than reality - the 1590s crisis was much less severe than the 1550s crisis
- Changes in social structure meant wealthier farmers now supported government rather than joining rebellions, leaving riots leaderless and easily suppressed
- While Elizabeth's government faced multiple pressures (war, monopolies debates, faction, economic hardship), the case for a fundamental crisis can be overstated
- Local and central government continued to function effectively, no major rebellion occurred, and the succession in 1603 was peaceful, suggesting the government remained in control