Population Growth and Increasing Poverty (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Population Growth and Increasing Poverty
Introduction
During the Tudor period, England experienced significant population growth which created widespread economic and social problems. Understanding the relationship between population growth and poverty is crucial for examining state control and popular resistance in this era. The Tudor authorities struggled to comprehend the true causes of poverty, often blaming the poor themselves rather than recognizing the underlying economic forces at work.
The relationship between population growth and poverty in Tudor England was complex, involving multiple interconnected factors including supply and demand, agricultural limitations, monetary policy, and social attitudes. Understanding this complexity is essential to grasping why Tudor authorities failed to effectively address the crisis.
Population growth in Tudor England
Population statistics and trends
England's population grew substantially during the 16th century:
- 1525: approximately 2.26 million people
- 1551: approximately 3.01 million people
- 1591: approximately 3.89 million people
This represents steady growth across the period, with one notable exception. During the 1550s, England experienced a temporary population decline caused by:
- Poor harvests during Mary I's reign
- An influenza epidemic which killed many people
After this temporary setback, population growth resumed and continued through the rest of the Tudor period.
Why population growth mattered
The main cause of poverty in Tudor England was that the population grew beyond a level that the country's resources and economy could support. The technology and agricultural methods of the time simply could not produce enough food and goods to keep pace with the increasing number of people. This created a fundamental economic crisis that affected the poorest members of society most severely.
Population growth was the primary driver of poverty in Tudor England. The agricultural economy lacked the technology and methods to increase production sufficiently to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population. This fundamental mismatch between population and resources created widespread poverty that no amount of individual effort could overcome.
Rising prices and falling wages
The principle of supply and demand
Population growth led directly to rising prices and falling wages through the basic economic principle of supply and demand.
Understanding Supply and Demand
Supply and demand is a fundamental economic principle that explains how prices are set in a market economy:
- When demand increases (more people want something), prices rise
- When supply increases (more of something is available), prices fall
- When more workers are available, wages fall because employers have more choice
- When fewer workers are available, wages rise because employers must compete for workers
Rising prices occurred because:
- As the population grew, more people needed to be fed
- Demand for food increased substantially
- Farmers and merchants could charge higher prices for their goods
- This led to price inflation (prices going up)
- Landlords lacked the necessary technology to increase food production by making less fertile land suitable for farming
- The agricultural economy struggled to keep pace with population increase
Falling wages occurred because:
- More young people entered the job market as the population grew
- Increased competition for available work meant employers could pay less
- Workers had little bargaining power when many others were seeking the same jobs
- Employers did not need to offer higher wages to attract workers
The combination of higher prices and lower wages created a devastating "cost of living crisis" for ordinary people, particularly those lower down the social ladder.
Harvest failures and their impact
The Tudor government could not ensure the population was always adequately fed. Bad weather could significantly affect harvests, reducing crop yields and creating food shortages. When this happened, grain became scarcer and prices rose even higher.
Major periods of harvest failure occurred in:
- 1519–1521
- 1527–1529
- 1549–1551
- 1554–1556
- 1586–1587
During harvest failures, the effects of supply and demand became even more severe. With less food available, prices soared to levels that put even basic nutrition out of reach for many families. This demonstrates how vulnerable Tudor society was to natural disasters and weather conditions.
During these periods, prices for essential goods soared. It was not just grain that became more expensive – prices for butter, eggs, cheese and wool all increased as the agricultural economy struggled to meet demand.
Evidence: the Phelps-Brown Index
Historian Henry Phelps-Brown created an index to track the cost of living and purchasing power in Tudor England. His research focused on southern England where good price records existed. The index measured:
- The average price of a "basket" of essential consumable goods
- The purchasing power of typical wages (using building workers and agricultural labourers as examples)
Key findings from the Phelps-Brown Index:
The data shows a dramatic decline in living standards for ordinary workers:
| Period | Price Index (1451-75 = 100) | Purchasing Power of Agricultural Labourer (1450-99 = 100) |
|---|---|---|
| 1510-19 | 111 | 89 |
| 1520-29 | 148 | 80 |
| 1530-39 | 155 | 80 |
| 1540-49 | 192 | 71 |
| 1550-59 | 289 | 59 |
| 1560-69 | 279 | 66 |
| 1570-79 | 315 | 69 |
| 1580-89 | 357 | 57 |
Key Findings from the Phelps-Brown Index:
- The cost of living rose dramatically, reaching a peak in the 1580s and 1590s
- The purchasing power of agricultural labourers was already declining at the start of the period
- Purchasing power reached its lowest point during the 1550s
- Even after some recovery, purchasing power never returned to early Tudor levels
- Workers could buy far less with their wages by the 1580s than their grandparents could in the 1510s
This evidence demonstrates that the economic crisis facing ordinary people was real and measurable, not simply a matter of perception or laziness.
Impact on different social groups
For people with sufficient land and property, population growth presented opportunities. Landowners could profit from:
- Rising food prices
- Increased demand for agricultural products
- Their ability to charge higher rents
However, for those lower down the social ladder, the effects were devastating. People without land or regular employment faced:
- Rapidly rising food costs
- Declining or stagnant wages
- Reduced purchasing power
- Increased risk of falling into poverty
The same economic forces that created opportunities for wealthy landowners created misery for the poor. This widening gap between rich and poor was a defining feature of Tudor England and contributed to social tensions throughout the period.
The dissolution of the monasteries and poverty
The dissolution of the monasteries in the late 1530s may have made poverty worse. Before the dissolution, monasteries provided a traditional source of support for the poor through alms (charitable giving of food, money or other forms of assistance).
When Henry VIII closed the monasteries:
- This important source of charity disappeared
- The poor lost access to traditional support networks
- Many people who had relied on monastic charity were left with no help
The dissolution removed a crucial safety net for the poor. While monasteries had not been perfect providers of charity, they had offered some support to the destitute. When this system disappeared, unemployment rose and more people fell into poverty with little or no support available.
The result was that unemployment rose and more people fell into poverty with little or no support available. Those who struggled to find work faced an even worse situation, with no safety net to help them survive.
Land and the growth of poverty
For people without land, or with just enough land to subsist (barely survive), the changes caused by population growth and inflation were particularly severe. Several practices by landlords made the situation even worse for the poorest members of society.
Enclosure of common land
Common land was land available for use by everyone in a local community. People with little or no land of their own could use common land to graze animals, gather fuel, or grow small amounts of food. This was crucial for the survival of the poorest families.
Ambitious landlords began enclosing common land:
- They fenced off land that had previously been available to all
- The poorest in society lost access to these vital resources
- People who had relied on common land for survival were pushed into deeper poverty
Tudor commentators like Thomas More believed enclosure was a major cause of poverty. However, historians now think that while enclosure was certainly a problem, it was not as significant a cause of poverty as population growth itself. Enclosure was a symptom and contributing factor rather than the primary cause.
Rack-renting
Rack-renting refers to the practice of rapidly increasing rents charged to tenants. Landlords used this method to:
- Increase their profits
- Force out tenants who could not afford the higher rents
- Free up land so they could enclose it for their own use
This practice made life extremely difficult for tenant farmers and those renting small plots of land. Many could not afford the increased rents and were forced off the land, becoming homeless and destitute.
Forestalling
Forestalling was the deliberate withholding of supplies from local markets in order to push up prices. When merchants or landlords practiced forestalling:
- They kept goods off the market until prices rose
- Artificial scarcity drove prices even higher
- The poor could not afford to buy essential goods
- Some people profited while others starved
Like enclosure and rack-renting, contemporaries blamed forestalling as a main cause of poverty. However, these practices, while certainly harmful, were symptoms of the deeper problem of population growth rather than the primary cause. They made a bad situation worse but did not create the fundamental economic crisis.
Impact of former monastic lands
After the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s, former monastic lands passed into the hands of lay (non-religious) landlords. It is possible that these new landowners were:
- Less charitable than the monks had been
- More focused on profit than on their tenants' welfare
- Less scrupulous in their dealings with inherited tenants
- More likely to practice rack-renting, enclosure and forestalling
This change in land ownership may have contributed to worsening conditions for tenant farmers and the rural poor.
Monetary causes of poverty
Beyond population growth and land issues, other factors related to money and coinage exacerbated (made worse) the growth of poverty in Tudor England.
Influx of precious metals from the New World
During the 16th century, Spanish conquistadors brought vast quantities of gold and silver from the Americas back to Europe. This influx of precious metals had significant economic consequences:
- More gold and silver was turned into currency across Europe
- This led to a price revolution – a phrase historians use to describe the rapid increase in prices during the 16th and 17th centuries
- As more money entered circulation, prices rose further
- This created additional inflation on top of the inflation caused by population growth
The price revolution affected all of Europe, but its impact was particularly severe in England when combined with other factors.
Debasement of the coinage (1542-1551)
Between 1542 and 1551, the English government debased the coinage. This was a deliberate policy to raise money for the crown, but it had serious economic consequences.
How Debasement Worked: The Process
Step 1: The government melted down existing coins containing gold and silver
Step 2: These precious metals were mixed with less valuable metals like copper
Step 3: The coins were then recast with the mixed metals
Step 4: Because more metal was used overall, more coins could be produced
Result: Each individual coin contained less gold or silver than before, but the government had more coins to spend
Impact of debasement:
The debasement created more inflation in several ways:
-
More money in circulation: Because there were more coins in circulation, merchants charged more for their goods. When more money is available, prices tend to rise.
-
Decreased face value: People recognized that debased coins contained less precious metal. Traders therefore charged more money for the same goods to compensate for receiving less valuable coins.
-
Loss of confidence: As the quality of English coinage declined, its value in international trade decreased, making imported goods more expensive.
The impact of debasement was felt most severely by:
- People whose wages were declining
- Those without regular employment
- The poor who had no savings or assets to protect them from inflation
While the government gained short-term revenue, the long-term consequences for ordinary people were devastating.
Combined monetary effects
The influx of precious metals from the New World combined with government debasement of the coinage created a severe inflationary crisis. For the poor, whose wages were already falling due to population growth, these additional price increases made their situation desperate. They faced:
- Rapidly rising prices for essential goods
- Wages that could not keep pace with inflation
- Reduced purchasing power
- Increased difficulty in simply surviving
Tudor attitudes towards poverty
The 16th century saw the creation of a wider gap between rich and poor in English society. However, Tudor politicians and economists did not properly understand the economic reasons for this growing inequality.
Misunderstanding the causes of poverty
Tudor authorities tended to:
- Blame the poor themselves for their poverty
- Assume that unemployed people were simply too lazy to find work
- Believe that sufficient employment existed if people would just seek it
- Think that poverty was a moral failing rather than an economic problem
A Fundamental Misunderstanding
This fundamental misunderstanding of poverty's causes shaped Tudor policy responses. Rather than addressing the underlying economic issues (population growth, inflation, wage decline), the government focused on punishing those it saw as idle.
This approach could never solve the problem because it treated symptoms rather than causes. No amount of punishment could create jobs that did not exist or make wages rise in a market flooded with workers.
Contemporary sources on poverty
Tudor writers expressed these attitudes in various works:
Richard Moryson (1536) argued that:
- Much English land was underused and could be made productive
- Many cities and towns had declined because people chose idleness
- England had more people "living without crafts" (unemployed) than other nations
- The solution was for people to work rather than remain idle
London citizens (1552) declared to the Privy Council that:
- The cause of beggary was idleness
- The remedy must be labour (work)
- Even those who had fallen into poverty through misfortune had "lost their credit" and could not find work
- The solution was to provide compulsory work for the "sturdy vagabond"
These sources show that Tudor society viewed poverty primarily as a result of individual moral failure rather than recognizing the complex economic forces creating unemployment and destitution.
The reality of poverty
Modern historians recognize that Tudor attitudes were mistaken. The reality was:
- Population growth had created genuine unemployment
- There was not enough work available for everyone
- Agricultural transformations displaced workers
- Even those willing to work could not always find employment
- Many people fell into poverty through circumstances beyond their control (war, sickness, bad harvests)
The Desperate Reality of Tudor Poverty
Historian Susan Brigden describes the true desperation of the poor:
Incident 1 - The Southwark Bread Distribution (1533): At a charitable distribution of bread in Southwark, the crush of desperate people was so great that four men, two women and a boy were crushed to death. The crowd's desperation for food was literally deadly.
Incident 2 - Abandoned Children: Some families in terrible poverty abandoned their children in the doorways of the rich, hoping they would be cared for rather than starve with their families.
These examples illustrate the genuine suffering that population growth and economic change created, far beyond any simple explanation of laziness.
Vagrancy and punishment
Why were vagrants and beggars punished?
Increasing poverty led to another major concern for the Tudor state: vagrancy and begging. Vagrants were people who wandered from place to place without a settled home or employment.
The Tudor authorities punished vagrants and beggars for several reasons:
-
Assumption of idleness: Because Tudor society believed jobs were available, they assumed vagrants were too lazy to work and deserved punishment to force them into employment.
-
Difficulty of control: Vagrants who wandered made it harder for authorities to control the population, particularly during times of political and social unrest. A mobile population could spread seditious (rebellious) ideas more easily.
-
Threat to social order: Vagrants did not have a master (employer or lord). In Tudor society, which viewed the world as a strict hierarchy with everyone having a defined place, this was seen as fundamentally threatening. People without a master were outside the normal social structure.
-
Spreading instability: The authorities feared vagrants might spread dangerous ideas that could undermine the Tudor state or encourage rebellion.
-
Local control: Many Tudor laws required vagrants to return to their home parishes (local church communities) to seek help. This kept people in communities where they were known to local authorities and could be more easily controlled and monitored.
The Tudor obsession with controlling vagrants reveals more about the government's fears than about the actual threat vagrants posed. In a hierarchical society, people who did not fit neatly into the established order were inherently suspicious, regardless of whether they actually posed any danger.
The parish system
The parish was the area under the organization and control of a local church. Each parish had its own priest who looked after the needs of the congregation. The parish became the central unit of administration for poor relief (assistance to the poor).
By requiring vagrants to return to their home parishes:
- Local authorities could identify who legitimately needed help
- Communities were responsible for their own poor
- Strangers and vagrants could be excluded or moved on
- The risk of social disorder was reduced
How were vagrants and beggars punished?
The belief that poverty was a personal choice led successive Tudor governments to pass increasingly harsh laws controlling and punishing those found begging or wandering.
Distinction between different types of poor:
Until the 1570s, Tudor laws distinguished between two groups:
-
The impotent poor: People who suffered physical disability or illness that made it impossible for them to work. These people were to be cared for and supported.
-
The able-bodied poor: People who were physically capable of working but were unemployed. These were considered "idle" or "sturdy beggars" who could work but chose not to. They were to be punished.
This distinction shows that Tudor society recognized some people genuinely could not work, but had little sympathy for those it perceived as choosing idleness. The problem was that this distinction assumed all unemployment was voluntary, ignoring the reality that there simply were not enough jobs for everyone.
Poor Laws and punishments
1495 Poor Law:
- Beggars and idle poor were to be placed in the stocks for three days
- They were then to be whipped
- After punishment, they were to be returned to their original parish
- Poor relief in parishes was based on voluntary contributions to the church alms fund
1531 Poor Law:
- Vagrants and beggars were to be whipped as punishment
- The impotent poor were to be licensed by JPs (Justices of the Peace)
- Licensed beggars were allowed to beg legally in their home parishes
- This created a system distinguishing between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor
Increasing severity:
As poverty grew throughout the Tudor period, punishments became progressively more severe. The authorities believed that harsher punishments would deter people from vagrancy and force them into work. However, since the real cause was economic rather than moral (lack of jobs rather than laziness), these harsh punishments did little to solve the underlying problem.
Limitations of the system
The Tudor punishment system for vagrancy had several weaknesses:
- It did not address the real causes of poverty (population growth, economic change)
- Harsh punishments could not create jobs that did not exist
- The system assumed all able-bodied unemployed people were lazy, ignoring genuine lack of work
- Reliance on voluntary alms was inadequate as poverty increased
- Parish-based relief meant that strangers and migrants received no help
- The system focused on controlling the poor rather than helping them
The Fatal Flaw in Tudor Policy
The Tudor approach to poverty was fundamentally flawed because it misdiagnosed the problem. By treating poverty as a moral failing rather than an economic crisis, punitive measures could never succeed. You cannot punish people into employment that does not exist, nor can harsh laws address the underlying forces of population growth, inflation, and economic transformation.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Population growth was the primary cause of poverty: England's population grew from 2.26 million (1525) to 3.89 million (1591), creating unsustainable pressure on resources and the economy.
-
Supply and demand drove prices up and wages down: More people meant higher demand for food (rising prices) and more competition for jobs (falling wages), creating a devastating cost of living crisis for ordinary people.
-
Multiple factors combined to worsen poverty: Harvest failures, dissolution of monasteries, enclosure of common land, rack-renting, and monetary problems (debasement and the influx of New World gold/silver) all contributed to increasing poverty beyond population growth alone.
-
Tudor authorities misunderstood poverty's causes: Politicians and economists blamed the poor for laziness rather than recognizing the economic forces creating genuine unemployment, leading to harsh punishment rather than effective solutions.
-
Vagrancy was treated as a threat to social order: Vagrants and beggars were punished severely because they were seen as idle, difficult to control, and threatening to the hierarchical structure of Tudor society, with Poor Laws distinguishing between the "deserving" impotent poor and the "undeserving" able-bodied poor.