Changes to Farming and Increased Vagabondage During the Elizabethan Era (GCSE Example Answer)

Here is an example answer to the following 16-mark question on whether changes made to farming was the main reason for increased vagabondage in England.

‘The main reason for increased vagabondage in England was changes made to farming’. How far do you agree?

Marks: 16 marks + 4 marks SPAG

Stimulus = Enclosure / Population increase

[Examiner commentary following each paragraph and at the end is provided in italics]

____________________________________________________

Vagabondage itself was the product of an increasing number of unemployed people (especially from the countryside) moving to urban areas. They deliberately lived outside of city and town walls (so they could essentially be outside of the law), and lived in tightly packed together shacks, turning to begging and crime to survive. There were many causes for this: recession, trade embargoes, bad harvests, a general population increase and changes to farming which led to higher levels of rural unemployment. Ultimately, changes in farming were the most important reason, therefore I agree with the statement. Improved farming techniques and an emphasis on enclosure and sheep farming placed less demand on labour-intensive work, which then meant landowners could exploit the competition for jobs by increasing land rents and reducing wages to maximise their own profits. This led to rural depopulation and a mass exodus to the towns and cities of England.

[This introductory description is helpful, but not necessary. In the interests of time, depending on the speed in which a candidate can write, it may be best simply to go straight into the initial judgement and analysis. Excellent awareness to the links between factors here.]

Certainly, changes in farming had a big impact on people in rural areas. These changes resulted in a loss of jobs which in turn caused countryside communities to migrate to urban ones in search of work. For example, the increasing lucrativeness of the wool trade (it accounted for 81.6% of exports during Elizabeth’s reign) meant that many farmers switched from growing food to sheep farming. Not only did this lower food supply and therefore drive prices up, it meant many lost their jobs as fewer workers were required on sheep farms. Importantly too, a lot of common land (which was traditionally reserved for the general population to grow food or rear pigs with) was taken over for the sheep to graze on, which made the problems of growing food for the rural community worse. Lastly, additional land was reserved for growing crops that only animals could eat, further depleting land available for people to work on and grow food to live off. A pamphlet in the 1560s, written by Sir Thomas Smith, criticised the pursuit of profit over the production of food and the wellbeing of the community.

Reliance on sheep farming and the wool trade was problematic because England’s chief trading partner was the Netherlands, which was controlled by the Spanish. Regular trade embargoes by the Spanish to punish Elizabeth for perceived interference in the affairs of the Dutch rebels meant that recession often hit the UK, which effected many industries associated with the wool trade (like the ship building industry) but especially with sheep farming.

[This point is often neglected as students forget that international relations have a part to play in trade and the economy. This precisely selected information helps exhibit a total focus on the question and by linking sheep farming to the wool trade, helps support the judgement.]

Another important farming change was improved approaches and techniques, which maximised efficiency, but at the expense of jobs. The role of the printing press in spreading new ideas about farming led to lots of land being enclosed. Enclosure was dedicating smaller areas of land to crops and animals. It meant farmers could better look after their produce and thus rear animals and grow food of a better quality. Moreover, enclosed land was easier to drain. Together, the process over a longer period of time was far less labour intensive and thus led to many farmhands losing their jobs.

However, one key reason for increased poverty, homelessness and vagabondage was population growth. England’s population grew from 3 million in 1551 to 4.2 million in 1601, which increased demands for food and therefore drove up prices. This occurred whilst simultaneously driving down wages because of the increased competition for jobs. Moreover, desperation for work meant that landowners further exploited this position by driving up rents on tenant farmers. Many workers therefore found it difficult to support themselves and their families. This was further compounded by the bad luck of poor harvests in 1562, 1565, 1573 and 1586, as this meant low food supply and high prices. It was especially perilous for subsistence farmers who lived off what they grew. Combined, these problems meant that people migrated to the major cities like Norwich and London especially, looking for work. Problematically though, rent prices and food prices were higher here because of the increased demand for food (which was high anyway as it had to be brought in from rural areas), which further increased levels of poverty.

[This is highly analytical. The temptation would be to link this issue to the statement, but bad weather and harvests impacted farming but did not embody changes to farming, which is what the statement of the question focuses on.]

Overall, whilst the consistent feature of population growth placed big strains on Elizabethan England and the intermittent recessions (due to trade embargoes imposed by Spain) and unforeseen bad harvests caused inflationary prices, it was changes to farming that increased vagabondage the most. The various developments combined to increase rural unemployment and motivate rural depopulation, while simultaneously increasing food prices and land rents. For those that stayed in rural areas, competition for jobs also meant lower wages. Lastly, the removal of ancient rights via the removal of common land from the common people meant there was no safety net. All of these changes therefore, both in the short term and the long term, caused continuous rural depopulation, which in turn led to the increasing trend of urban vagabondage.

[The summary and linkage of factors here, as well as the emphasis on developments over the long term, help to reinforce the criteria upon which the judgement was based. ]

Overall Examiner Comments:

Level 4, 13-16 (+3-4 marks SPAG)

A highly analytical and developed answer, linking the changes made to farming the wider issues surrounding trade, unemployment and rural depopulation. The links further ensure the answer is coherent with a logical, sustained argument. The wide-ranging knowledge goes beyond the stimulus points with ease and the occasional statistic helps to establish the extent/scale of impact felt by the factors analysed.