Social Change in England during the Timeline 1580-1640 - Essay Example

? THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ECONOMY AND POPULATION OF LONDON GREW AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROVINCES IN THE PERIOD 1580-1640 Introduction During the latersixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the increasing pace of economic change placed English society under considerable strain. Historians consider this as a period of gradual transition impacted by several crises which eventually led to the stabler and more prosperous situation of the later seventeenth century. The processes of economic, demographic and social changes were based on several underlying causes. Widespread poverty and vagrancy were detrimental to the social order of the time. Serious offences were common-place occurrences during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, reaching a peak between 1590 and 1620; similarly food riots caused by bad harvests, and minor agrarian disturbances took place frequently (Wrightson 1993). Additionally, a number of epidemic diseases ravaged the country. Large numbers of people migrated to London from the provinces. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which London’s population and economy grew at the expense of the provinces in the years 1580-1640. Social Change in England During the Timeline 1580-1640 In the timeline between the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century England, social change was slow. Prosperity was limited socially to the upper and middle classes of society and geographically it was confined to the south of England. It was counterbalanced by a number of detrimental changes such as increased costs and the charging of interests on loans. The paradoxical elements of a changing socio-economic environment were evident in “agricultural improvement and agrarian distress, increased production and widespread deprivation, undoubted prosperity and equally striking impoverishment” (Wrightson 1993: 122). The decades between 1580 and 1640 saw changes to the economic and social structures of England, based on a shifting balance between population and resources, production and demand. The process began prior to the timeline under study, and exerted its influence long afterwards. However, the change process reached its crisis and found its resolution within the period. There were regular occurrences of various epidemic diseases such as plague, typhus, dysentry and influenza in preindustrial England. Plague was endemic in the country from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. “Severe epidemics occurred in London from 1604 to 1610, and 1640 to 1649 with at least four milder epidemics between these two larger ones” (Bollet 2004: 23). Plague weakened the social cohesiveness between the rich and poor classes, and created a high degree of social and geographical mobility. The openings in the economic, political and social spheres caused by adult deaths were filled by individuals who would not have been found suitable in a more stable system. The difficulties related to town life prompted the rich and successful to migrate to the countryside, leaving great opportunities behind them. “Geographical mobility was increased by the influx of immigrants from the countryside which so quickly replaced epidemic losses” (Dyer 1978: 321). The population of England doubled during the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The general demographic expansion was uneven both chronologically and regionally. By 1580 the population of Enland reached 3.5 million, and continued to increase until the 1620s and 1630s when it began to level off. Wrightson (1993) argues that a decline in the incidence and virulence of the bubonic plague in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries may have fuelled the population rise of the sixteenth century by ceasing to regularly decimate an abundant population. Expansion renewed after checks in population growth, ceased only in the seventeenth century by an increasing death rate caused probably by the introduction of new infectious diseases. On the other hand, historical demographers have emphasized that populations in this period could recover with radical speed from the effects of mortality crises caused by epidemic diseases. A tendency towards homeostasis produced a rough equilibrium between fertility and mortality, when socio-economic changes favoured marriage and fertility. Demographic Changes in London: Migration and Urban Mortality Vagrants, labourers, servants and the poor migrated to London in search of a livelihood, from the provinces. Cornwall (1967) states that considerable turnover took place even over short periods of time. For example, the midland parishes of Clayworth and Coggenhoe revealed a turnover of families at the high rate of over 60% in twelve years. This occurred because from the mid-sixteenth century, population growth outstripped economic growth. Migration on a large scale and over long distances is reiterated by Cressey’s (1970) study of East London in the years 1580 to 1640. By the mid-sixteenth century when England’s conquest of Ireland under Queen Elizabeth I took place, social turmoil increased in English society. Particularly, population growth threatened to adversely impact the existing social order. The population of England increased from approximately 3.25 million around 1570 to 4.07 million in 1600, although it did not attain the high levels it had reached before the severe decimation caused by the Black Death in the mid-fourteenth century. Concurrent with the population growth came a change in the agrarian economy of the time. There was the severing of customary ties between farmers and those who owned the land, since landlords enclosed their lands to create large pastures for sheep. Hence many rural inhabitants including one-time farmers had to migrate to other places in search of a livelihood. Although seasonal migrations were regular features historically even in stable European economies, “the scale of migrations within England as on the continent, became far larger in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (Mancall 1995: 11). “The poor of all ages were a highly mobile section of the population” (Short 1992: 66). The economy depicted structural as well as seasonal unemployment, endemic underemployment and frequent economic depressions, due to which jobs were hard to find, in the villages and provincial towns. This resulted in increasing vagrancy. For example, one-ninth of the vagrants apprehended in Salisbury between 1598 and 1638 claimed to have a trade. Others were nomadic due to their trade as chapmen and pedlars. Some long term vagrants faced risks by indulging in petty crime while living on the road always on the move. They increased in numbers due to “long-term economic and demographic trends and short-term crises such as bad harvests and trade slumps” (Short 1992: 67). The worst years were the 1590s and from the 1620s to 1650s. In the early seventeenth century there was a four-fold increase in the number of poor travellers that left three Midland parishes. Several of them were only temporary vagrants whose goal was to reach London or some large town. Studies have argued that before the mid-seventeenth century, vagrants were young, single and often travelled great distances. On the contrary, analysis of data from Dr. Clark’s study (Slack 1987) revealed that the percentage of migrants were nearly the same from all the three age groups, with many vagrants being middle aged and even elderly. Those aged between 10 and 19 were 21.5%, those between 20 and 29 were 18.2%, and those between 30 and 39 were 19.9%. In pre-industrial England the expectation of life at birth was only forty years. Most of the vigrants were single males, while unmarried women constituted only a quarter of the number of vagrants. “Labourers were another highly mobile sector of English society, often sliding into temporary or permanent vagrancy” (Short 1992: 68). They were compelled to move around in search of work, though married labourers who owned a cottage were less likely to move permanently. At the same time, economic and social historians are increasingly emphasizing that pre-industrial England was a land of strong regional and local differences. Hence, “differences in wage levels, different forms of agriculture: arable or pasture, the existence of by-employment and the open-close dichotomy” (Short 1992: 68) impacted the mobility of farm labourers. Migration was essential for the growth of early modern London and the economic and demographic system of England. Research conducted by Jacob (2010) examined one of the most important migrant groups, apprentices from the north-east of England which matched the dynamism of London. A study of the social and family background of these apprentices revealed the influence of birth order on the decision to migrate, with older children in a family moving away to London to learn a trade as apprentices. Similarly, local change in the North-East also impacted migration. From a city of about “50,000 to 60,000 in the 1520s, London grew rapidly to that of 200,000 in 1600, 400,000 in 1650, and 575,000 by 1700” (Wrightson 1993: 128). Most of the increased population was crowded into new suburbs such as the east London parishes of Stepney and Whitechapel, which rose to 21,800 by the early seventeenth century. Urban population growth was mainly due to immigration. Relatively few towns such as Worcester could grow by natural increase because most urban populations were subjected to high mortality rates leading to a regular surplus of burials over baptisms. London required around “5600 immigrants a year between 1560 and 1625 and 8000 a year between 1650 and 1700 in order to replace its population deficit and continue to grow” (Wrightson 1993: 128). Urban mortality which was bad at the best of times was made worse by recurrent outbreaks of bubonic plague, as found in Bristol, Norwich, Plymouth, and in London in 1593, 1603, 1625 and 1665 taking into consideration only the major outbreaks. The towns became homes for not only the apprentices and other migrants from fairly prosperous backgrounds, but also large numbers of subsistence migrants driven to the towns due to economic necessity, particularly between 1590 to 1630. There was a significant urbanization of the national population, because the urban population increased at a disproportionately high rate (Wrightson 1993). The natural increase in population in provincial England contributed to the rapidly expanding city of London through migration. Migrants from long distances formed the majority of those moving to London. For example, migrants from Stepney in the East End who came to London between 1580 and 1640 “before the archidiaconal courts of the Diocese of London” (Horn 1996: 47), 74 percent were born outside London and the home counties. Further, those who undertook domestic work as servants coming mainly from urban backgrounds suggests that they had first moved from their parishes to the local towns such as Bristol or Liverpool. They moved to London either because of lack of success in finding work, or for better prospects. A vast proportion of the migrants emigrated to America, ending up in Virginia and Maryland, leaving the crowded conditions of London behind. Economic Changes During the Period 1580-1640 in London Throughout the period 1580 to 1640, there was an overall rise in prices, with more dramatic increases in some years. For example, “the decade beginning 1591 saw average prices at 530, a substantial increase over the average of 389 for the previous decade” (Braddick 2000: 49). After 1631, prices stood at an average of 687 contrasting with 585 of the previous decade. However, the rate of inflation was not the same for all commodities. Particularly, price rises for industrial and livestock products were slower. Based on the close relationship between population and price curves, and because of the differential rate of inflation between various products, historians are inclined to explain this according to the characteristics of supply and demand, with a real rather than monetary explanation for this inflation. For example, with a slow down in the rise in population after around 1650, the prices also slowed down, because population pressure no longer forced the levels of demand to exceed the levels of supply. Secondly, there was no difference between price increases for staple foods such as grains and relative luxuries such as livestock and manufactured products. This is due to the comparative inelasticity of demand for food. With rise in prices, patterns of consumptoin moved away from relative luxuries such as meat and clothing, with the result that the general rise in demand for those commodities was less obvious. Finally, rapid price rises in the 1590s and 1630s took place due to poor harvests, thus contributing to short-term pressure on supply, and compounding the general pressure in the economy. Though a less persuasive explanation, the general rise in prices and its pattern of increase is attributed to exacerbation of these developments by changes in money supply, a dishonourable feature of the mid-sixteenth century and the subsequent inflow of bullion (Braddick 2000: 49). The price rice was not accompanied by similar increases in wage rates” (Braddick 2000: 49). Population growth was increasing the labour supply with greater speed, than economic growth was creating employment. This led to an oversupply of labour and reduction in real wages. Wages for agricultural workers were estimated in the south of England in 1596-97 as worth only 29 percent of their worth at the turn of the sixteenth century; and over the decade of the 1590s, the estimate was only about 50 percent. Short-term factors could produce really serious problems; bad harvests such as those in the late 1590s meant high prices as well as a reduced demand for labour. “Population, price, and wage data therefore provide evidence for a compelling case that population growth outstripped economic growth, creating potential hardship” (Braddick 2000: 50). Alongside poverty and declining living standards due to economic change, there was also progress with the increase in productivity of English agriculture. Significantly however, the real extent of poverty and progress are questioned. The bleak representation presented here depends on three indicators: population, prices and wages. Of these, the most reliable are the population figures. For London in the sixteenth century an alternative price series to that given above suggests that “inflation was slower, more affected by monetary factors, and that changes in relative prices were less like those associated with over population. The fall in the value of wages was also less marked, they had fallen only by 29 percent by the end of the seventeenth century. Such a reduction may have been compensated by relatively small changes in consumption. By making small adjustments real wages may have declined only by 17 percent (Rappaport 2002). Braddick (2000) reiterates that this evidence is vital, because London underwent a highly rapid population growth in this timeline, as a result of immigration. Containing a considerable proportion of the total population, it was particularly sensitive to harvest outputs because almost all of its food was being produced elsewhere and procured through the market. Further reasons for exercising prudence in accepting the bleak perspectives of economic change during this period includes estimates for wage levels. These are based partly on a successive sequence of wages paid to builders, but the importance of this wage is not straightforward. Builders were probably paid partly in cash being more like small businessmen rather than wage earners. They were suppliers of raw material, employers of labour, and with possible other employments such as those related to a smallholding. Wages paid to them are not a good indication of their overall income specifically for large-scale contracts which would have included agreements for raw materials and employees. This could possibly pertain to other trades also. Taking all these difficulties into consideration, it is certain that real wages did decline until the middle of the seventeenth century (Woodward 1995). Further, Braddick (2000) argues that the chronology and geography of famines reveals that they were declining in both intensity and in geographical range with increasing population, rather than worsening. Therefore, there are good grounds for disbelieving the claim that population growth in England was so far exceeding production that regular checks on the population were being applied by famine. Thus, there is some uncertainty about the true extent and depth of poverty in the period 1580 to 1640, the true social costs of population growth and related economic change. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the extent to which London’s population and economy grew at the expense of the provinces from 1580 to 1640. Social change in England during the timeline, the demographic changes in London due to migration and urban mortality caused by epidemics and poor living conditions, and economic changes in London from the late sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth centuries have been examined. The evidence indicates that caution is required in accepting embellished accounts of economic change in London in this period based on price and wage data, and the absence of general starvation. On the other hand, even the most optimistic modern historians acknowledge though the situation was not as bad as gathered earlier, with population increase there were years when people died for want of food. Braddick (2000) supports this view, adding that the most encouraging concept of living standards was that with adjustments in consumption the value of a wage might have fallen by only 17 percent. Further, governmental measures to help the poor had also been undertaken, urged by the fear of the adverse outcomes of economic and social change. Bibliography Baer, W.C. (2007). Planning for growth and growth controls in early modern Northern Europe: Part 2 The Evolution of London’s practice 1580 to 1680. The Town Planning Review, 78 (3): pp.257-277. Bollet, A. J. (2004). Plagues and poxes: The impact of human history on epidemic Disease. Edition 2. New York: Demos Medical Publishing. Braddick, M. J. (2000). State formation in early modern England, c.1550-1700. London: Cambridge University Press. Cressey, D. (1970). Occupations, migration and literacy in east London, 1580-1640. Retrieved on 4th November, 2011 from: http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/PDF/LPS5/LPS5_1970_53-60.pdf Cornwall, J. (1967). Evidence of population mobility in the seventeenth century. Hisorical Research, 40 (102): pp.143-152. Dyer, A. D. (1978). The influence of Bubonic plague in England 1500-1667. Medical History, 22: pp.308-326. Horn, J. (1996). Adapting to a New World: English society in the seventeenth century Chesapeake. The United States of America: UNC Press. Jacob, F. (2010). Apprenticeship migration to London from the North-East of England in the seventeenth century. The London Journal, 35 (1): pp.1-21. Mancall, P. C. (1995). Envisioning America: English plans for the colonization of North America, 1580-1640. The United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Rappaport, S. (2002). Worlds within worlds: Structures of life in sixteenth-century London. Edition 4. London: Cambridge University Press. Short, B. (1992). The English rural community: Image and analysis. London: Cambridge University Press Archive. Slack, P. A. (1987). Vagrants and vagrancy in England 1598-1664. In P. Clark and D. Souden (Eds). Migration and society in early modern England. London: Hutchinson Publishers. Chapter 1: pp.49-76. Woodward, D. (1995). Men at work: Labourers and building craftsmen in the towns of Northern England, 1450-1750. London: Cambridge University Press. Wrightson, K. (1993). English society, 1580-1680. London: Routledge. Read More