Read extracts 1, 2 and 3. Using your understanding of the historical context, assess how
convincing the arguments in these three extracts are in relation to Elizabethan society and the
economy. (30)
Source A argues that enclosure was a major and “growing” social problem in Elizabethan
England. Firstly Coleman highlights the insecurity of tenants due to enclosure. There was
certainly a problem with the legal position of tenants-at-will and copyholders in Elizabethan as
they essentially lacked any legal claim to the land they were on so could be easily evicted after
facing impossibly high rent. On the other hand, following the sale of monastic land at the end of
Henry VIII’s reign, there had been an increase in land ownership. Therefore more people had
gone from renting to small-scale land ownership and by Elizabeth’s reign the yeoman class had
expanded significantly. Thus it is perhaps unfair to treat land owners and tenants as such
opposing social classes as Coleman does. Moreover, there was a drive to convert agricultural
land to pastoral land through enclosure due to the profitability of the wool trade in England. In
fact, 80% of Elizabethan exports was wool. There was certainly a reason for wanting to enclose
land. That being said, the implication that enclosure was the cause of a “swell” of landless
labourers and/or financial insecurity generally among the poor is inaccurate. From 1500-1600
there was only a 2% increase in enclosed land, and even in the areas most adversely affected
by enclosure, only 9% of land was enclosed. Finally, Coleman accurately conveys the
Elizabethan government’s perception of the threat of enclosure, albeit itself inaccurate. The
1598 parliament passed the Statute Against Conversions to Pasture and Statute Against the
Engrossing of Farms following an increase in the rate of enclosure from 1591-7. In this way,
Coleman emphasises what was considered a major social issue as a cause of vagrancy at the
time, even if the bad harvests of 1594-7 were at the very least a significant secondary
contributor to a rise in rural and urban poverty. Source A stresses enclosure as a significant
cause of social issues under Elizabeth, but this is done at points to a fault.
In Source B, Palliser gives the impression of a socially progressive Elizabethan England, in
which people across all classes were better off than the generations before them. It is true that
Elizabeth did ensure a certain degree of “prosperity” across the classes by ensuring peace from
1564 to 85. Economically, this meant the rate of taxation remained relatively low. Moreover, she
benefited from Northumberland and Mary’s policies to reverse the effects of debasement, which
would have caused a significant generational difference between working-aged people at the
end of Henry VIII’s reign and Elizabeth’s subjects. The religious settlement also served to
establish greater domestic stability than the rebellions linked to religion under Edward VI and
Henry VIII. Additionally, there is evidence that Elizabeth took measures to improve the lives of
labourers. Elizabeth showed her determination to bring about economic and social stability by
increasing customs revenues, regulating labour, wages and apprenticeships and keeping the
level of foreign borrowing down. Moreover, there were several external factors which improved
England economically. Religious wars in the Netherlands and France brought many skilled
workers to England who established new industries such as glass and paper making. All of this
may suggest that Palliser is right in asserting that the people of England were “generally better
off.” However, many of these factors which could have contributed to improved prosperity either
were not felt equally across Elizabeth’s reign or are overestimated by Palliser. The claim that
convincing the arguments in these three extracts are in relation to Elizabethan society and the
economy. (30)
Source A argues that enclosure was a major and “growing” social problem in Elizabethan
England. Firstly Coleman highlights the insecurity of tenants due to enclosure. There was
certainly a problem with the legal position of tenants-at-will and copyholders in Elizabethan as
they essentially lacked any legal claim to the land they were on so could be easily evicted after
facing impossibly high rent. On the other hand, following the sale of monastic land at the end of
Henry VIII’s reign, there had been an increase in land ownership. Therefore more people had
gone from renting to small-scale land ownership and by Elizabeth’s reign the yeoman class had
expanded significantly. Thus it is perhaps unfair to treat land owners and tenants as such
opposing social classes as Coleman does. Moreover, there was a drive to convert agricultural
land to pastoral land through enclosure due to the profitability of the wool trade in England. In
fact, 80% of Elizabethan exports was wool. There was certainly a reason for wanting to enclose
land. That being said, the implication that enclosure was the cause of a “swell” of landless
labourers and/or financial insecurity generally among the poor is inaccurate. From 1500-1600
there was only a 2% increase in enclosed land, and even in the areas most adversely affected
by enclosure, only 9% of land was enclosed. Finally, Coleman accurately conveys the
Elizabethan government’s perception of the threat of enclosure, albeit itself inaccurate. The
1598 parliament passed the Statute Against Conversions to Pasture and Statute Against the
Engrossing of Farms following an increase in the rate of enclosure from 1591-7. In this way,
Coleman emphasises what was considered a major social issue as a cause of vagrancy at the
time, even if the bad harvests of 1594-7 were at the very least a significant secondary
contributor to a rise in rural and urban poverty. Source A stresses enclosure as a significant
cause of social issues under Elizabeth, but this is done at points to a fault.
In Source B, Palliser gives the impression of a socially progressive Elizabethan England, in
which people across all classes were better off than the generations before them. It is true that
Elizabeth did ensure a certain degree of “prosperity” across the classes by ensuring peace from
1564 to 85. Economically, this meant the rate of taxation remained relatively low. Moreover, she
benefited from Northumberland and Mary’s policies to reverse the effects of debasement, which
would have caused a significant generational difference between working-aged people at the
end of Henry VIII’s reign and Elizabeth’s subjects. The religious settlement also served to
establish greater domestic stability than the rebellions linked to religion under Edward VI and
Henry VIII. Additionally, there is evidence that Elizabeth took measures to improve the lives of
labourers. Elizabeth showed her determination to bring about economic and social stability by
increasing customs revenues, regulating labour, wages and apprenticeships and keeping the
level of foreign borrowing down. Moreover, there were several external factors which improved
England economically. Religious wars in the Netherlands and France brought many skilled
workers to England who established new industries such as glass and paper making. All of this
may suggest that Palliser is right in asserting that the people of England were “generally better
off.” However, many of these factors which could have contributed to improved prosperity either
were not felt equally across Elizabeth’s reign or are overestimated by Palliser. The claim that
