Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merritt and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's lesson is looking at the impact of the Elizabethan Poor Law, and by the end of today's lesson we'll be able to explain how the Elizabethan Poor Law changed the lives of those affected by.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms. And our key terms for today are impotent, idle, able-bodied, and parish.

Impotent means helpless or powerless or unable to take effective action.

Idle means avoiding work or being lazy.

A person who has a strong and healthy body is classified as able-bodied.

And a parish is a small administrative district that has its own church and priest.

Today's lesson will consist of two learning cycles and our first learning cycle is terms of the 1601 Poor Law.

Let's get going.

So the 1601 Poor Law was designed to end the issue of vagrancy, the issue of vagabonds and begging, which had increased throughout the Tudor period.

Part of the problem of previous Tudor poor laws was that they put all unemployed people together in the same category regardless of their circumstances.

So that therefore means that those who are able to work but don't have a job are classified exactly the same as those people who are able to work but just don't want to and are classified as those who are simply unable to work for whatever reason.

Elizabeth's 1601 Poor Law instead divided the unemployed into three categories and dealt with them in different ways, which proved a far more successful tactic.

The categories that Elizabeth's government laid out were the impotent poor, the able-bodied poor, and the idle poor.

The impotent poor were those who through no fault of their own were unable to work.

And this might be because they were disabled or injured or too old or too young.

Under Elizabeth 1601 Poor Law, the impotent poor were to be provided with food and housing in order to support them and prevent them from begging.

Orphan children who were classified as part of the impotent poor could also become apprentices to craftsmen so that they could learn a trade.

And the whole idea is that therefore when they get older, they'll have a trade to support them and that will prevent them from having to become beggars or vagabonds themselves.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So which two groups of people were classed as part of the impotent poor? Are they ex-soldiers, ex-farm labourers, those that were too old to work or those that were too young to work? So choose two of those groups now.

Okay, if you chose C and D, then very well done.

That is indeed correct.

Now, the able-bodied poor were those who were able to work and indeed wanted to work but were unable to find jobs.

The population of England doubled during the Tudor periods and this rapid growth coupled with changes to land use and religion meant that by the time of Elizabeth reign there were simply not enough jobs to go around.

In fact, in many cases there were less jobs that there had been previously.

So less jobs, but more people mean that the problem of unemployment just continues to grow.

Many of the able-bodied poor were previously farm labourers.

So these people lost their jobs when land enclosure due to sheep farming meant that they just didn't need as many people.

Previously land had been used to grow crops.

A lot of landlords changed their land use to farming sheep instead because the wool trade was really, really profitable.

But you don't need as many people to tend sheep as you do to grow crops.

So therefore a lot of people made unemployed.

Servants to a lord who had died were also a significant portion of those were unemployed as well, or apprentices that had been released from their apprenticeship.

Not everybody who becomes an apprentice had necessarily cut out or good enough to become a master of their craft.

So after a certain number of years, if a master craftsman finds that their apprentice is just not up to the job, then they perhaps they'll be let go.

Previous vagrancy laws had punished this group of people, but the 1601 Poor Law, however stated that this group should be provided with raw materials such as wool or hemp and allowed to work with that in order to earn a living.

As I said before, the wool trade was extremely profitable, so clothing could be made out of raw wool.

A lot of it was shipped over to the continent as well to be made into to clothing there.

But there was a huge industry that could be generated from the sheep industry, from the wool industry.

Hemp as well was really important, actually growing in importance as well, 'cause out of hemp you can make rope, which is extremely useful for the Navy, and our Navy was growing at this point in time as well.

So hemp was a really, really important product that the able-bodied poor were able to work with that would earn some money, but would also actually benefit the country as well.

So it was quite a clever use of resources in terms of the actual raw materials, but also the actual people as well who need jobs.

Now the final group, the idle poor were those who were able to work but chose not to.

And this group worried the Tudor elites who viewed them as vagabonds and criminals.

The 1601 Poor Law, just like earlier Tudor poor laws, punished this group.

And if they would not willingly work, then the idle poor would be whipped, they'd be sent to a house of correction and forced to work.

House of correction could be thought of as similar to prisons in the respect that you didn't have a choice, but whether you wanted to go to this place or not, you were forced to go there.

And they weren't particularly nice places as well.

So if you weren't part of the able-bodied poor, you would still be made to work just like they did, but you'd be doing it in a far less nice environment as well.

Stays in the house of correction were tough, but they were generally brief as well.

So two thirds of inmates were released within two weeks.

So very quickly people realised that this is not a place I want to be.

I'll stop being idle.

Instead I'll be part of the able-bodied poor and I will want to get work, and if I'm given work to do, then I would do it, just not in here.

There's an example there on the screen, in fact, the Bridewell Prison was the first house of correction that we have there.

It used to be a palace actually, but obviously it has a very, very different use at this point in time.

Okay, let's go for a quick check for understanding now then.

So true or false, the idle poor were hanged in houses of correction.

Alright, if you chose false, then very well done.

That is a false statement, but why is it false? Let's justify our answer now.

So is it false because the impotent poor were actually hanged in houses of correction or is it false because the idle poor were whipped and forced to work in houses of correction? So choose your justification now.

Okay.

If you chose B, then congratulations.

That is correct.

Let's go for our task of today then.

So what I'd like to do is match the category of unemployed person to how the 1601 Poor Law supported them.

There's a mix and match activity.

Pause the video while you do this and I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you've got fine with that task.

Let's see what the correct answers are.

So the impotent poor were provided with food and housing and orphan children were apprenticed.

The able bodied poor were provided with raw materials like wool or hemp to work with.

And the eye door poor were whipped, they were sent to a house of correction and they were forced to work.

So hopefully you got all of those correct.

Let's go for another task now though.

So what I'd like us to do now is to think about how different groups of people might have felt about the 1601 Poor Law.

So I'm gonna give you four different groups of people.

There's two on this slide and there'll be two on the next slide.

So what I'd like to do is to fill in the speech bubbles with what each person might have said about it.

So an old woman, and just to give you a hint there, this woman is too old to work.

How might she have felt about the 1601 Poor Law? And an orphan child.

So I get a hint for this one.

This child has no parents to teach her a trade.

How might this person, or how might this group have felt about the 1601 Poor Law? And the last two groups as well, government officials, they might have felt that they need to find ways to support the poor and decide who deserves support.

How might they have felt about the 1601 Poor Law? And for an unemployed man, this man has tried to find work but there is none for him, how would he have felt about the Poor Law? So pauses a video whilst you do this task and I'll see once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Have you got okay with that task? So let's think about what we could have said then.

So for an old woman, this group of people might have felt that "Thank goodness for this law, I don't have any means of income: without the help given to me by this poor law I certainly would've starved.

Thank you, Queen Elizabeth." So old people were probably quite grateful for this change in the law because now they don't have to starve, they don't have to beg, they get the support that they need.

For an orphan child, they might have felt, "Because of this law, I have a future.

I don't have any parents to look after me or teach me how to earn a living.

But now that I'm an apprentice, my master will do all of that.

' So again, orphan children were probably quite happy with this change to the law as well, because now they have something to look after them and now they have a craft which will help them for the rest of their lives as well.

Government officials, well they might have felt that, "Something does need to be done about the poor, but this is a very expensive way of dealing with them.

I'm concerned that people will pretend to be one of the impotent poor and take advantage!" So those that are in charge of organising how the money allocated to the poor is actually to be spent, will probably feel a little bit nervous, maybe a little bit apprehensive about possibly getting it wrong as well.

What if I'm wasting this money? What if people have taken advantage of me? So it is a heavy responsibility in each parish to do this, and I'm sure that some people would've felt that the responsibility, the burden is a bit too much.

And the final group we've got here as well for unemployed man.

So the only employment I felt that, "I was so worried that people would think I was a criminal.

I just want to work to support myself and my family.

I'm so glad that I've been given the opportunity to make a living as part of the able-bodied poor." So for the vast majority of the tutored period, these people that wanted to work to support their families, to uphold the law and be a good citizen, but we're just unable to do so, I suspect that there's quite a lot of nervousness that they feel that they're being classified as criminals, when they're just unfortunate that there's in their parish there is no work to be had.

So I imagine this is quite a relief for a lot of people in that respect as well.

So hopefully you've got a good understanding of how the 1601 Poor Law will affect different groups in different ways.

Right, let's move on to our second learning cycle for today, which the impacts of the Poor Law.

So at first, the 1601 Poor Law actually wasn't regularly used.

And this was due to a number of reasons.

Firstly, the prejudice that many of the Tudor elite felt towards the unemployed and that being that they were only unemployed because they were lazy criminals.

If they wanted to work, then they could have just worked.

This prejudice doesn't just disappear overnight.

It takes time for these thoughts and feelings to kind of filter out of the national consciousness in that respect.

And as a result, this prevented many officials from using the new law as they believed that no one who was unemployed actually deserved this kind of help.

And other people actually felt that the charity provided to street beggars or large donations made by the wealthy, that was already doing a good enough job of helping the poor.

And arguably they have a point prior to the disillusion of the monasteries, when the monasteries were there to supplements the charity that was also provided then, yeah, maybe street begging and maybe large donations actually could have provided the poor in certain parishes with enough of what they needed.

It's not a great life, but perhaps they would've had enough at this point in time.

But after the disillusion of the monasteries, it's hard to believe that there was enough charity to go around for the number of poor people that actually needed it.

So one example of sort of large donations that wealthy people might have have left for poor people was the building of almshouses such as we can see on the screen here in front of you.

So generally speaking, almshouses were for specific groups of poor people and usually laws were put into, or rules were put into place regarding what people could and couldn't do if they wanted to live in an almshouse.

But as long as you can live by those rules, it's usually things like no drinking.

It's usually things like you have to be over a certain age as well.

So we're looking after, for instance, the elderly in this respect.

If you're gonna abide by those rules, then having an almshouse, having a roof over your heads is a very generous contribution indeed.

So the 1601 Poor Law stated that help for the poor had to be organised at a parish level as local officials would know and be better able to categorise the poor people that lived in their parish.

And just to give you an idea about what they would look like on the screen in front of you, I've got a map of all the different parishes in just one county in England at this point in time.

So this is the county of Hampshire and hopefully you can see just how many parishes there are just in one county.

So we are talking about a lot of local institutions organising this help for the poor.

There are actually roughly 15,000 parishes in England at this point in time.

So there is a lot of different groups of people in individual areas helping the poor in their area.

But because of this, it naturally would lead to a great deal of variety in how the law works.

Some people are just better at this job than others.

Some people are more dedicated, some people have greater ability because perhaps there are more rich people in their parish or there are less poor people that they may need to be distributed to.

There's a huge amount of variety in who could get what sort of help depending on where they are.

Now, as well as this interpretations of who fit into each category also differed from place to place as well, meaning that some people potentially who actually should have received aid, they didn't as well.

So many parishes, especially urban parishes were also wary of using the law to its full effects.

And the reason being is that they were worried that it was too generous and that therefore it would encourage the poor from other regions to travel there for aid.

So throughout the Tudor period there had been a migration of people from rural areas into urban areas anyway, and a lot of local officials in urban areas feared that if they were generous with their Poor Law interpretation, then that would encourage even more rural people to migrate to their their particular parish as well.

Now, the law also stated that each parish was responsible for providing aid for people who had been born into that parish or who had lived there for most of their lives.

Now this had the twin effects of making people reluctant to move elsewhere for work, because if they did, they might not get any sort of support if they don't find that work, whilst also allowing those that did move elsewhere and then applied for relief to be pushed from one parish to another.

So they might argue that you weren't born in this parish, so you need to leave, and the parish they were born into might argue, well, actually you've lived most of your life in this other parish, so you need to leave this parish as well.

So some people did just get shunted from pillar to post because no parish wants to take responsibility, and although it's unkind and although see individual people are suffering because of this, it is somewhat understandable why this happens because each parish wants to reduce the amount of a they had to pay out by shifting responsibility to different parishes.

So it's not a case of people are just cruel and they don't want to help people.

It's more a case of people don't want to pay out more than they necessarily feel that they have to.

And that's why some people as a result, slipped through the cracks and they just don't receive the help that they should be getting.

Now, in spite of its drawbacks and the initial reluctance of officials to use it properly, the 1601 Poor Law was a remarkable step forward.

It acknowledged that the government was there to help people who were unable to help themselves.

And that's a dramatic transformation of what people felt the government should be doing in England.

Its success can be measured in its longevity.

Elizabeth I Poor Law remained essentially unchanged for more than 230 years.

Okay, let's have a quick check for understanding now then.

So a discussion question, Why would urban parishes in particular be concerned about having to pay for additional poor people? And as a little hint there, think about what cities are like today and that might give you some understanding of what it might been like at this point in time as well.

So pause the video if you need to while you do this and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's think about what you could have said then.

So it could have said that there's already a lot of people living there so that potentially there's already a lot of poor people that need help, as well as that there are more people moving to urban areas looking for work.

There's already a lot of people living there and there are more people coming as well, which, although they might be there right now, I think government officials in urban areas are conscious of the fact that their need will be growing within the very near future as well as more and more people come to their parish.

And as well as that, because there's lots of new people that perhaps you don't really know very well, you are less likely to accurately know what category new people should be in.

So this person who considers themselves to be impotent poor, are they genuinely disabled? Are they genuinely as old as they're claiming to be? It's sometimes tough to say unless you know that person.

So government officials in urban areas are really quite wary of using the law because they just didn't know that the huge numbers of people that are coming into their parishes.

Right.

I have another check for understanding.

So how long did this 1601 Poor Law last for until it was changed? Was it roughly 120 years? Was it roughly 230 years? Or was it roughly 340 years? Make your choice now.

Okay, well done if you chose B, that is the correct answer.

Let's go for our next task now then.

So I want us to think about what were the strengths and weaknesses of the 1601 Poor Law.

And I've gotta tell you what I'd like you to complete in order to help you understand that question.

So I've added a point for each column just to kind of get you started.

So for instance, one of the strengths of the Poor Law was that it helped those who were unable to help themselves.

And I'll say the key to that is the impotent poor.

And a weakness though is that it was not applied equally across the country.

Now if you can, I'd like to try and get at least two more points for each column.

So two more points for strengths and two more points for weaknesses.

If you can get more than that, that'd be even better.

So pause the video now while you're doing this, and I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you got okay with that task.

Let's think about what you could have said then.

So in terms of the strengths of the Poor Law, you could have said that it offered unemployed people work and it gave orphans a trade.

Obviously, there are more strengths that you could have said, but there's a couple there we could have said.

In terms of the weaknesses, you could have said that it discouraged people from moving for work, and also many officials did not initially use it.

So, and again, there are more weaknesses than that, but there's a couple there for you.

So hopefully you've got a decent table that's been completed now as well.

Okay, let's move on then to our final task for today.

And I'm going to answer this question.

So how effective do you think the 1601 Poor Law was? And I'd like to write a balanced answer to this question.

Now, what I mean by that is I'd like to explain first of all how you think it was an effective law followed by how you think that perhaps actually it wasn't a particularly effective law.

And then finally, the last little thing is I'd like you to explain what your overall opinion was.

Now there's no right or wrong answer to this particular question.

It genuinely doesn't matter what your opinion is.

What matters is how you can explain your opinions.

That's the real key aspect of this task is being able to support your point of view.

And the way to do that is to use specific evidence.

So use details in your answer to help you answer the question.

And if you are struggling with that, then use the table that we've just completed in our previous task.

So pause the video now while doing this and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Have you got all fine with that task? Let's think about what you could have written then.

So the answer on the screen that I've got in front of you here says, In some ways the 1601 Poor Law was effective.

It successfully divided the unemployed into the impotent poor, the able bodied poor and the idle poor, and provided appropriate help for each.

Previously these groups have been unfairly punished.

However, the 1601 Poor Law was not fully effective.

It did not change the opinions of many of the Tudor elites who still thought that all unemployed people were lazy and did not deserve help.

Therefore, some of these people did not provide the help they should have.

Overall, the 16 one Poor Law was effective, 'cause it lasted for 230 years.

If it had not been effective, it would've been removed or changed long before that.

Now if you've got an answer that is different from mine, if you've got a different opinion to me, it's absolutely fine.

It generally doesn't matter as long as you've justified what your opinion is.

So as long as you can back up your opinion with evidence, then that's absolutely fine.

That's the key aspect of this particular question.

Right, let's summarise today's lesson then.

So there's 1601 Poor Law divided the unemployed into three categories: The impotent poor, the able-bodied poor and the idle poor.

Each of these groups were treated differently.

The impotent poor were given aid, the able-bodied poor were given work, and the idle poor were punished.

The 1601 Poor Law had mixed results with officials initially unwilling to use it fully.

However it lasted, mostly unchanged for more than 230 years.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully if you enjoyed yourself, hopefully you've learned something, and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-bye.