One major difference between country and city labor is, that country labor was seasonal for the most part. For instance, in agricultural cultivation there were constant problems of finding enough hands to gather the harvest, and of finding enough work for people to do over the remainder of the year 25
| Who worked in the country? | How did the laborers interact with the land owners? | How were the field systems changing? |
| Who worked in the country? | ||
As is evident by the contemporary perception of the country, agricultural laborers worked in the English countryside. Additionally in Renaissance England, sheep farmers, coopers, tinkers, cowleeches, tailors, and shopkeepers were common trades in the country. Due to the seasonal influences on the work load of the laborers in the country, underemployment was chronic in early modern England. To circumvent income, laborers would turn to "by-employments". Some 60 percent of laborers named on a Gloucestershire listing of 1608 were exercising supplementary trades28. Thus a man could be listed as a laborer and cowleech, a laborer and fiddler, or a laborer, cooper, and tinker, etc. A tradesmen was different from a "laborer" in the country. Tradesmen in the country and city belonged to guilds and received more formal training. A laborer or person who toiled over the land did not receive training and also worked more physically and for less money 28. It was not solely men or apprentices trained for seven years that worked in the country trades. Men, women, children, and youth, basically all ages of habitants of the country could and did labor in the country. "The Hock-cart" by Robert Herrick acknowledges that "rural younglings" and "rustics" (ll. 16 and 23) were enjoying the celebration of their season of work. Additionally, a 1570 census completed at Norwich indicated that five- or six-year-olds were contributors to family income with their wages, and adolescents were reported as chief breadwinners28. While adolescents in the city were apprentices in a trade, those in the country were often the most vital to the success of their own household. Additionally, those that worked in the country to earned a living often were paid not in coin. There was a custom of substituting food and drink or other forms of payment for part of the money wage. These food and drink substitutions were both a service and discredit to the workers. The most commonly noted exchange of food and drink between employer and employee in the Renaissance, mirrors the modern day "Christmas bonus". In early modern England, toilers, or those who worked the lands, participated in Christmas mummery, a tradition of receiving food and drink from those who provided them with work. An anonymous poem "A Song Bewailing the Time of Christmas, So much Decayed in England" demonstrates the act of Christmas mummery and the lament of toilers unable to obtain what they believe is rightly theirs. The poem cites that "Christmas bread and beef is turned into stones" (l. 11) because of the flocking of the lords of the manner, those who employed the laborers, into the city. These "Christmas gifts" were not merely "gifts" but supplements to the wages of the workers as evidenced by "Farmers that Christmas would entertain/ hath scarcely withal them selves to maintain" (ll. 28-29). In addition to work in exchange for food and drink, laborers in the country could often expect perquisite. These could include a coal allowance for a miner or weavers might keep the waste ends of cloth 28. |
|
|
| How did the laborers interact with the land owners? | ||
| Most textual evidence of the interactions of those who worked the land and those who owned the land, paint a dark picture and thus indicate a poor relationship between those separated by money and land. A warning to landlords on how to respect their tenets and workers "A Lanthorne for Landlords" outlines the necessity of landlords treating their workers and tenets with compassion and care. The widow and mother of twin boys of the poem being "turn'd out of doore" (l. 35) by the employer of her deceased husband, eventually is righted for this cruel treatment and revenge is sought on the "vile conceit" (l. 28) landlord. The poem serves a representation how the landlords in early modern England treated their tenets and workers as only modes of gaining more wealth as opposed to humans. In Robert Herrick's "The Hock-cart" the toilers are instructed to "Feed him ye must whose food fills you," (l. 52). Thus those that work the lands know that they have an obligation to respect and hail their lord. While both the workers and land owners were instructed to respect each other, neither of these actions occurred frequently as represented in the literature of the time. It would seem that a reciprocal relationship should have been established between those who worked the land and those who owned it. Without the land owners employing the land workers, the land would not provide the lords harvest to sell. Yet, without the land owners owning the land, the land workers would not be able to be employed. While this understanding is far to simple, it provides significant evidence to the change in employment in the country with the shift of the fields systems. |
A model estate map of a manor in 1653 |
|
| How were the field systems changing? | ||
The field systems up to and partially continuing through the Renaissance were known as "common fields". During the Renaissance a switch to "enclosures" dramatically influenced the agricultural workforce and production of crops and wool in England. The four essential elements of the common field systems are:
Each of these four elements were not present at the start of the common grazing. The oldest element is common grazing over pasture and waste. From the 16th century forward, manorial documents contain more and more explicit rules and regulations about common field systems. As farms are divided into smaller units and the population rises, the production of food has to increase. This means arable land must increase, thus waste land decreases and the arable has to be worked more. There is now a need for more intense rotation of crops, thus less grass fields for grazing. As time passed there were introductions of regulations so all had access to their land and water as well as rules were in place for protection against damage by stock. As all the population still increased and land owners were in contest for more land to increase production, a new system emerged. The system of enclosing the land and restricting those who had access to the land caused upheaval in the countryside. In the crudest sense, enclosure meant farmers all over England were converting their lands into sheep pasture because they knew wool was more profitable than any other produce of the farm. This sentiment is witnessed in primary texts of the time. As an example, "A Song Bewailing the Time of Christmas, So Much Decayed in England" chastises the lords of the manner by associated them with sheep by calling them "flocks" (l.3). Not only does the poem resort to insulting their lords by calling them what they see as ruining their Christmas, but also the poem directly states "Places where Christmas revels did keep,/ Are now become habitations for sheep." (ll. 18-19). Perhaps, a more suitable definition for enclosure is a method for increasing productivity or profitability of land. In the 16th century, England is by no means unified in their approach to land systems. Thus, it is hard to generalize enclosure as it occurred for different reasons at different rates across England. Every landlord and farmer had their own reasons for enclosing the land. Enclosures afforded the landlords and farmers, more profitable farming in times of inflation of food prices, the ability to increase rent and reduce labor costs. While the enclosures were not always solely to convert plough land into pasture, much unrest resulted from the change of the English landscape in the Renaissance. In attempt to discover the proceedings of the enclosure and rebellious nature it invoked, in 1607 the crown began an investigation into seven counties regarding enclosures. Despite the reasons of the landlords or increase in production of wool or other agriculture products, enclosures at the time seemed to do more damage to the countryside than good in the eyes of those who worked the land. Midland peasants that lived in the midst of enclosures saw more cattle and sheep in the closes and rich farmers taking up more land but giving less employment to the laborers. The unrest that the countryside faced and the peasants instigated as a result of fear for their livelihoods was somewhat quieted by the 17th century enclosure agreements, but the field system was changed forever. For more information or a more comprehensive look into the field systems in Renaissance England refer to Joan Thirsk's The Rural Economy of England. |
Regional specialization of agricultural production in Renaissance England:
(regional specialization still present in Britain today, to an extent)
|
|
