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 going.

Today's lesson is looking at Tudor attitudes to poverty and the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

And by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to explain how far attitudes to the poor changed during the Tudor period.

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

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

A vagabond is someone who wanders from place to place without a home or a job.

An act is a law passed by Parliament.

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

And idle means avoiding work or being lazy.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles.

And our first learning cycle is looking at Tudor attitudes towards the poor.

So let's get going.

Now, during the early Tudor period, monasteries helped with the worst problems that the poor faced, such just lack of food and lack of medical care.

The rich did offer some help for those that they felt deserved it, because the Bible expected them to.

However, this charity work was inconsistent and it was limited.

From the government itself, there was very little thought or help for the poor.

And hopefully the diagram on the screen might give you some indication about how it all actually works.

So the people living in poverty had a great many needs, and for the most part, those needs were met either by themselves or by relief from the monasteries.

So the monastery provided some local people with care if they were sick.

They also provided them with work upon occasion.

They provided them with fresh food as well upon occasion, and other goods as well that monasteries made.

Those needs were sometimes topped up by local rich people as well.

Now, this is not to say that all of the needs of the poor people in England were met by the monasteries and by charity from the rich.

It just means that on average, for the most part, those needs could be catered for.

If there had been a particularly bad year, for instance, if there was a poor harvest, for instance, or if there was warfare taking place, then those needs wouldn't be met, and there would be famine, and there would be hardship, there could be starvation.

But on average, in general, the monasteries and charity from the rich could cater for most of the needs that poor people faced in England at this point in time.

Now, after the dissolution of the monasteries in 1536, the number of poor people, they didn't drastically increase.

There wasn't suddenly more poor people simply because the monasteries were no longer there.

What happened instead was that the problems that had previously been dealt with by the monasteries were just dramatically exposed.

So there weren't more poor people, but the problems that they faced now suddenly just came to light in a really dramatic way.

And it suddenly became very clear that poverty was no longer a problem that could just be ignored by the government.

And again, hopefully the diagram on the screen just kept giving indication of that, that this effectively threatens to imbalance Tudor society.

And that is the real issue from the perspective of the government, is that suddenly society isn't working.

It's not functioning as well as it did previously.

So this is now a problem that they need to stand up and and bring attention towards.

Poor people began moving away from their parishes if they could not find food and work, which is a natural reaction to the situation.

And they hoped, of course, that they could find these necessities elsewhere.

The government and the elites of Tudor society responded harshly to this change in circumstances.

They were not a fan of the social order being disrupted in this way.

These travelling poor people, or vagabonds, as they were termed, were viewed with suspicion, and that's putting it quite mildly.

As the Tudor period progressed and the levels of poverty increased, the attitude of the elite hardened even further.

In 1567, a book was published which identified different types of fake beggars and the tricks they pulled to gain money.

Now, I've got no doubt that there were some people who were perfectly capable of working and chose not to.

They chose a life of begging or they chose a life of crime, in which case this book might have been accurate to some degree, that some people were pulling some of these different tricks.

So for instance, the book said that some people would eat soap to make their mouth foam to give them an idea that, or to give the impression that they were having some sort of fits, and hopefully that would gain sympathy, and people would give them money as a result.

However, we can't imagine for just one moment that the majority of these vagabonds were in that situation.

Most people were homeless, most people were travelling, trying to find food and work and housing because they were in desperate circumstances, not because they were trying to trick somebody into giving them money.

However, this book, it summed up the attitude of the government and many of the elite, who viewed all vagabonds and beggars as undeserving of help, but worthy of punishment.

Now let's have a quick check for understanding.

So true or false, during the mediaeval and early Tudor period, the government provided a lot of relief for the poor.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, if you chose false, then congratulations, that is correct.

But let's justify the answer now.

Why is it false? So is it false because local parishes provided lots of relief for the poor during this time, or is it false because monasteries and occasionally rich people provided relief for the poor? So choose your justification now.

Okay, if you chose B, then very well done.

That is indeed correct.

Let's have another check for understanding.

So I'd like you to choose two ways that monasteries had previously helped poor people in England.

Did they help them with education, entertainments, food, or medical care? So choose two of those now.

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

Those are the correct answers.

Right, let's go for our first task of the day then.

So what I'd like to do is fill in the gaps in the flow diagram which shows how attitudes towards the poor changed during the Tudor period.

And just to help you out, there are some words on the screen that have been removed and you need to find the correct place for the correct word.

So pause the video while you do this.

I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

So the first one should be monasteries provided poor relief, and the rich also provided some poor relief, and the government did not need to provide poor relief because the monasteries and the rich were already doing so.

So from the opinion of the government, that was all that's necessary, the government didn't need to step in.

However, Henry VIII's government dissolved the monasteries, led to the dissolution of the monasteries, and this meant that poverty increased, and it increased because these measures that monasteries had previously put in place, they were no longer there to try and help the poor.

As a result of that, attitudes towards the poor harden.

So it's not a case of the government and the elite in society start feeling sorry for the poor.

Their immediate response is to feel suspicious and to start acting against them instead.

So hopefully you've got those correct answers as well.

Right, let's move on then to our second learning cycle for today, which is how did early Tudor monarchs deal with the poor.

So Henry VII, who's on the screen, his son Henry VIII, who's there in the middle, and his grandson, Edward VI, who's there as well now, all introduced vagabonds acts which they hoped would end the problem of travelling beggars.

Henry VII's Vagabonds and Beggars Act of 1495 aimed to publicly humiliate beggars by placing anyone caught begging in the stocks for three days and then sending them back to their parish of birth.

So you may have seen images of the stocks, and in a lot of cases you'd have to have your legs clamped by two wooden boards, your hands, and sometimes your head clamped as well by two wooden boards.

And effectively all that would happen is that you'd be in a public place in this situation, and then people can ridicule you, they can mock you, they could throw things at you.

You're effectively at their mercy for however long that punishment is due to take place for, in this case, three days.

Now it's not a case of you would be allowed to have food and water, so you're not starving during this point in time, but it is, it's a form of, effectively, public humiliation, and designed to kinda keep society in check.

So you don't wanna look a fool in front of your friends and family, so you would do what you need to do to prevent yourself from going in the stocks.

And what you need to do is follow the rules, obey the laws, then you won't get put in the stocks.

Public humiliation has served as a fairly effective way to keep society in check for some time.

So this was Henry VII's response, was to publicly humiliate beggars.

Henry VIII's Vagabond Act of 1530 replaced the stocks with public flogging, which is whipping.

So effectively, he's gone from humiliating beggars to physically punishing them as well.

Whipping was painful, obviously, but not only that as well, it could open up wounds, which could become infected, and people could die from that as well.

Not every time, but people did die from flogging because of their infection from the wounds.

Having said all this, Henry VIII also did allow the impotent poor, and the impotent poor in this case were sick people, disabled people, and the elderly, effectively people who cannot work through no fault of their own, or cannot work extensively through no fault of their own, he allowed them to apply for licences to beg in certain areas of town.

So Henry VIII felt that begging can provide some service to certain people, but not to everybody.

Edward VI took his father's principle of effectively offering help with one hand and then offering punishment on the other.

He took it even further with his Vagrancy Act of 1547.

And under Edward VI's act, people caught begging were sold into slavery for two years.

They were made slaves for two years.

And they were also branded with a V in a prominent position, usually on their face.

So a big V, effectively a big V scar would be on their face.

So the V stands for vagabonds.

So people are obviously aware that, even years after the offence, this person used to be a vagrant or a vagabond.

Now if they were caught a second time, obviously it's quite easy to see who's been caught a second time because it's anybody who's caught begging who has a massive V scar on their face, if they were caught a second time, they would be put to death.

So the punishment has gone from public humiliation, to physical punishment, to slavery and death in just a few decades.

On the other hand though, his 1551 Poor Acts instructed every parish to collect money from the rich to be given to the poor.

And Edward VI therefore hoped that this would end any need for begging.

So Edward VI felt that he could be harsh on beggars because under his laws there shouldn't be any need for begging because effectively the charity provided by the rich has been increased, and it becomes mandatory, it becomes necessary.

You have to do it at this point in time.

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

So which Tudor king introduced the death penalty for a second offence of begging? So was it Henry VII, Henry VIII, or Edward VI? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose Edward VI, then congratulations, that is indeed correct.

And another check for understanding.

Which Tudor king introduced begging licences for the impotent poor? Was it Henry VII, Henry VIII, or Edward VI? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose Henry VIII, then very well done.

That is indeed correct.

Right, let's have our next task then.

So Tudor monarchs were not sympathetic to vagrants and beggars.

So that's a statement on the screen there.

What I would like you to do is to write down one fact that you can use as evidence that supports that statement, and then also one fact that you can use as evidence that contradicts the statement.

So pause the video while you perform this task, and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task.

So let's go and see what you could have written then to support that statement.

So you could have said that evidence to support this statement is that three of the Tudor monarchs passed acts which punish people who were caught begging.

For example, Henry VII punished beggars by humiliating them in the stocks, Henry VIII punished beggars by flogging them, and Edward VI punished beggars by enslaving them and branding them with a V the first time that they were caught, and killing them if they were caught begging a second time.

And in regards to the second part of the task, finding evidence to contradict the statement, you could have said that evidence to contradict this statement is that there was some understanding shown towards poor people and some attempts to help them through acts Tudor monarchs passed, for example, Henry VIII allowed the impotent poor to be given licences to beg, and Edward VI ordered that the rich from every parish had to give money to help their poor neighbours.

So that's some of the examples you could have given there.

Let's move on now then to our third and final learning cycle for today, which is how did Elizabeth I deal with the poor.

Now the problem of poverty increased dramatically during Elizabeth's reign, especially when successive years of crop failures pushed up food prices.

Elizabeth introduced more acts dealing with poverty and vagrancy than any other Tudor monarch, and that's because it was more of a problem during her reign.

Much like the rest of her family, Elizabeth mixed punishment with supports.

So Elizabeth issued her own Vagabonds Act in 1572, which punished beggars by having a hole burnt through their ear the first time they were caught, so very similar to Edward VI's idea of branding somebody with a V on their face.

Now it's very clear if somebody has been caught begging because they've got a massive hole burnt through their ear.

And then the second time they were caught, it was death by hanging.

So again, very similar to Edward VI's attitude towards punishing the poor.

On the other hand, in 1563, the Act for the Relief of the Poor stated that any rich person who did not contribute to helping the poor in their parish would be fined.

And a 1575 act enabled the idle and able-bodied poor to attend houses of correction where work was provided for them.

So very similar to Edward VI in that respect, just effectively changing a few of the details.

Elizabeth found that under Edward VI's law, not all rich people are actually contributing to trying to help the poor in their parish.

So Elizabeth made it mandatory, effectively.

If you're not gonna do this, then we are going to fine you.

If you're not gonna willingly give the money, then we will take the money from you.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So let's have a quick discussion question.

What were the similarities and differences between Elizabeth I's Vagabond Act and the previous Tudor monarchs vagabonds acts? So pause the video now while you discuss this, and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

So a similarity you could have said is that the poor were punished for begging, that there was a physical punishment for begging, which was similar to Henry VIII and Edward VI, that there's a death penalty for the second offence, which again is similar to Edward VI.

One way it's different though is that it was stricter than Henry VII's punishments.

So if you remember, Henry VII's punishments was about public humiliation.

It wasn't actually about physically hurting people or by killing them.

And also, Elizabeth didn't punish people with slavery, which again is different to what Edward VI was doing.

So a number of town councils across the country experimented with different methods of supporting their citizens.

For example, York, the most important city in the north, and Norwich, England's second largest city after London, introduced laws which were effective in reducing the problems of poverty in those cities.

There were other towns and cities that also provided effective relief for the poor, but we're just gonna focus on those two for now.

When it became clear to Elizabeth and her government that their focus on punishing begging and vagrancy was not proving effective, they looked instead at the council's laws to try to reduce poverty instead.

So rather than just focusing on the symptoms of poverty, these town councils, like York and Norwich, and some others as well, were effectively looking at the causes of poverty and were trying to solve those issues instead.

Elizabeth's government understanding that just tackling the symptoms is not a particularly effective way of dealing with the issue, suddenly realised that no, we need to start looking at the causes of these problems instead.

Now, Elizabeth's Poor Relief Act of 1601 used the model set out by some city councils.

And effectively what they did is they extended it nationwide.

So they took the best of what some cities, like York and Norwich, were doing and they made it so that every town and city and parish in the country would have to do the same thing as well.

So the first thing was that the poor were divided into three categories.

There was the impotent poor, which consisted of the sick, the disabled, and the elderly.

There was the able-bodied poor who wanted to work, but they were just simply unable to find jobs.

So if there weren't jobs in their parish and they wanted to work, then they were considered the able-bodied poor.

And finally, there were the idle poor who were sent to houses of correction and were forced to work.

And these are people that were able to work, there was nothing physically or mentally wrong with them, but they were simply choosing not to work.

And that's the issue there.

Now, under the 1601 Poor Law, this was all paid for and organised at a parish level.

The thinking behind this was that local people would have a better understanding of how the poor in their particular parish should be categorised.

So they will know who should be classed as impotent poor, they should know who is able-bodied, and and who is idle.

And that was the thinking behind that situation there.

Now the Elizabethan Poor Law, as it became known, remained essentially unchanged for the next 200 years.

So this was the law that the government used to deal with the issue of poverty in England for more than 200, for roughly 200 years.

Now let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So what I'd like you to do is match the key term to the correct definition.

Okay, so the impotent poor are the sick, the disabled, and the elderly.

The able-bodied poor wanted to find work but could not find jobs.

And the idle poor were able to work but chose not to.

So hopefully you got all of those correct as well.

One more check for understanding now.

Which two cities did Elizabeth I's government use as inspiration for the 1601 Poor Law? Was it Lincoln, Norwich, Winchester, or York? Choose those two correct ones now.

All right, if you chose Norwich and York, then congratulations, that is correct.

Right, let's go into our first task C now.

So I've got two interpretations on the screen here, one from Aisha, one from Alex.

And what I'd like to do is read through them and then figure out what the difference is between the two interpretations.

So Aisha says, "The 1601 Poor Relief Act was great.

Elizabeth I should be celebrated for showing that she cared about her poor subjects when they needed it the most." And Alex says, "The 1601 Poor Relief Act wasn't that great.

There was a lot more that Elizabeth could have done to support those that were living in extreme poverty." So tell me what the difference is between those two interpretations.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So hopefully you understood the difference between those two interpretations, but here's what you could have said.

You could have said that Aisha thinks that the 1601 Poor Relief Act was great and showed that Elizabeth I cared about her poor subjects, but Alex does not think that it went far enough to support poor people in Elizabethan England.

Let's move on then to our second task for Task C.

So I'd like you to provide one piece of evidence to support one of the interpretations.

So choose either Aisha's or Alex's interpretations and provide a piece of specific evidence that backs up their opinion.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

Now, if you chose Aisha's interpretation, you could have said something along the lines of this.

So Aisha's interpretation can be supported by the fact that the Elizabethan Poor Law did give support to the impotent poor by providing them with food and housing.

This is important as it showed that Elizabeth cared about her most vulnerable subjects.

So hopefully there you can see that I provided some specific evidence, a specific bit of detail, but then I've also explained how that detail supports the point that I'm making.

And if you chose Alex's interpretation, you could have said something on the lines of Alex's interpretation can be supported by the fact that the Elizabethan Poor Law copied what big cities, like Norwich and York, were already doing, and only did that because punishing the poor did not seem to be working.

Therefore, there was more that Elizabeth's government could have done earlier on in her reign to support the poor.

So there, Alex is making the point that what's been done is okay, but it should have been done earlier, and that's what Elizabeth could have done better.

She could have introduced these acts much earlier and therefore helped people earlier.

Right, let's summarise the lesson now then.

So monastery has provided the majority of support for the poor throughout the early Tudor period.

After the dissolution of the monasteries, many poor people were forced into vagrancy and begging.

Tudor monarchs punished vagabonds and beggars, although limited support was offered as well.

And Elizabeth I issued the 1601 Poor Relief Act in an attempt to provide support for the impotent poor and able-bodied poor, as well as to punish the idle poor.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

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