Previously to 1760 the old industrial system obtained in England; none of the great mechanical inventions had been introduced; the agrarian changes were still in the future. It is this industrial England which we have to contrast with the industrial England of to-day. For determining the population of the time we have no accurate materials. There are no official returns before 1801. A census had been proposed in 1753, but rejected as 'subversive of the last remains of English liberty.' In this absence of trustworthy data all sorts of wild estimates were formed. During the American War a great controversy raged on this subject. Dr Price, an advocate of the Sinking Fund, maintained that population had in the interval between 1690 and 1777 declined from 6,596,075 to 4,763,670. On the other hand, Mr Howlett, Vicar of Dunmow, in Essex, estimated the population in 1780 at 8,691,000, and Arthur Young, in 1770, at 8,500,000 on the lowest estimate. These, however, are the extremes in either direction. The computations now most generally accepted are those made by Mr Finlaison (Actuary to the National Debt Office), and published in the Preface to the Census Returns of 1831. These are based on an examination of the registers of baptisms and burials of the eighteenth century. But the data are deficient in three respects: because the number of people existing at the date when the computation begins is a matter of conjecture; because in some parishes there were no registers; and because the registration, being voluntary, was incomplete. Mr Finlaison, however, is stated to have subjected his materials to 'every test suggested by the present comparatively advanced state of physical and statistical science.'
Now according to Mr Finlaison, the population of England and Wales was, in 1700, 5,134,516, in 1750, 6,039,684, an increase of not quite a million, or between 17 and 18 per cent. In the first half of the century. in 1801 the population of England and Wales was 9,187,176, showing an increase of three millions, or more than 52 per cent. In the second half.8 The difference in the rate of increase is significant of the great contrast presented by the two periods. In the former, England, though rapidly increasing in wealth owing to her extended commercial relations, yet retained her old industrial organisation; the latter is the age of transition to the modern industrial system, and to improved methods of agriculture.
The next point to consider is the distribution of population. A great difference will be found here between the state of things at the beginning of the eighteenth century, or in Adam Smith's time, and that prevailing now. Every one remembers Macaulay's famous description in the beginning of his history of the desolate condition of the northern counties. His picture is borne out by Defoe, who, in his Tour through the Whole Island (1725), remarks: 'The country south of Trent is by far the largest, as well as the richest and most populous,' though the great cities were rivalled by those of the north. if we consider as the counties north of Trent Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Staffordshire (about one-third of the total area of England), we shall find on examination that in 1700 they contained about one-fourth of the population,10 and in 1750 less than one-third, while in 1881, they contained more than two-fifths; or, taking only the six northern counties, we find that in 1700 their population was under one-fifth of that of all England, in 1750 it was about one-fifth, in 1881 it was all but one-third.
In 1700 the most thickly peopled counties (excluding the metropolitan counties of Middlesex and Surrey) were Gloucestershire, Somerset, and Wilts, the manufacturing districts of the west; Worcestershire and Northamptonshire, the seats of the Midland manufactures; and the agriculture counties of Herts and Bucks - all of them being south of the Trent. Between 1700 and 1750 the greatest increase of population took place in the following counties:
Lancashire increased from 166,200 to 297,400, or 78 per cent. Warwickshire " 96,000 " 140,000, " 45 " The West Riding " 236,700 " 361,500, " 52 " of Yorkshire Durham " 95,000 " 135,000, " 41 " Staffordshire " 117,200 " 160,000, " 36 " Gloucestershire " 155,200 " 207,800, " 34 "
Cornwall, Kent, Berks, Herts, Worcestershire, Salop, Cheshire, Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland each increased upwards of 20 per cent.
The change in the distribution of population between the beginning of the eighteenth century and Adam Smith's time, and again between his time and our own, may be further illustrated by the following table. The twelve most densely populated counties and their density to the square mile were:
1700 1750 1881
Middlesex 2221 Middlesex 2283 Middlesex 10,387 Surrey 207 Surrey 276 Surrey 1,919 Gloucester 123 Warwick 159 Lancashire 1,813 Northampton 121 Gloucester 157 Durham 891 Somerset 119 Lancashire 156 Stafford 862 Worcester 119 Worcester 148 Warwick 825 Herts 115 Herts 141 West Riding 815 Wilts 113 Stafford 140 Kent 600 Bucks 110 Durham 138 Cheshire 582 Rutland 110 Somerset 137 Worcester 515 Warwick 109 West Riding 135 Nottingham 475 Oxford 107 Berks 131 Gloucester 455
The most suggestive fact in the period between 1700 and 1750 is the great increase in the Lancashire and the West Riding, the seats of the cotton and coarse woollen manufactures. Staffordshire and Warwickshire, with their potteries and hardware, had also largely grown. So had the two northern counties of Durham and Northumberland, with their coalfields. The West of England woollen districts of Somerset, and Wilts, on the other hand, though they had grown also, showed nothing like so great an increase. The population of the eastern counties Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, had increased very little; though Norwich was still a large manufacturing town, and there were many smaller towns engaged in the woollen trade scattered throughout Norfolk and Suffolk. Among the few agricultural counties which showed a decided increase during this period was Kent, the best farmed county in England at that time.
If we turn to the principal towns we shall find in many of them an extraordinary growth between the end of the seventeenth century and the time of Adam Smith. While the population of Norwich had only increased, according to the best authority, by about one-third, and that of Worcester by one-half, the population of Sheffield had increased seven-fold, that of Liverpool ten-fold, of Manchester five-fold, of Birmingham seven-fold, of Bristol more than three-fold. The latter was still the second city in the kingdom. Newcastle (including Gateshead and North and South Shields) numbered 40,000 people.
The following are the estimates of population for 1685, 1760, and 1881 in twelve great provincial towns:-
1685a
c. 1760
1881g
Liverpool 4,000
40,000c
30-35,000d
552,425
34,000e
Manchester 6,000
30,000c
393,676
40-45,000d
Birmingham 4,000
28,000b
400,757
30,000d
Leeds
2,000
---
309,126
Sheffield 4,000
30,000c
284,410
20,000d
Bristol 29,000
100,000d
206,503
Nottingham 8,000
17,000f
111,631
Norwich 28,000
40,000c
87,845
60,000d
Hull
---
20,000c
161,519
24,000d
York
10,000
---
59,596
Exeter
10,000
---
47,098
Worcester 8,000
11-12,000c
40,422
a. Macaulay's History of England c. 3.
b. Defoe's Tour (1725)
c. Arthur Young (1769)
d. Macpherson's Annals of Commerce (1769)
e. Levi's History of British Commerce
f. Eden's State of the Poor (1797)
g. The Returns for 1881 are those of the parliamentary district.
Another point to be considered is the relation of rural to urban population. According to Gregory King, writing in 1696, London contained 530,000 inhabitants, other cities and market-towns, 870,000, while villages and hamlets numbered 4,100,000. Arthur Young, seventy years later, calculated that London contained one-sixth of the whole population, and remarked that, 'in flourishing countries,' as England, 'the half of a nation is found in towns.' Both estimates are very unreliable, apart from the fact that both, and especially that of Arthur Young, overestimate the total number of the population, but the contrast between them justly indicates the tendency of towns even then to grow out of proportion to the rural districts. That disproportion has, of course, become even more marked since Arthur Young's day. In 1881 the total urban population was 17,285,026, or 66.6 per cent, while the rural was 8,683,026, or 33.3 per cent.
The only estimates of occupations with which I am acquainted are again those of Gregory King in 1696, and Arthur Young in 1769. They are too vague, and too inconsistent with one another, to be relied on, but I give them for what they are worth. According to the former, freeholders and their families numbered 940,000, farmers and their families, 750,000, labouring people and out servants, 1,275,000, cottagers and paupers, 1,300,000; making a total agricultural population of 4,265,000, against only 240,000 artisans and handicraftsmen. Arthur Young estimates the number of different classes as follows:-
Farmers (whether freeholders or leaseholders), their servants and labourers............... 2,800,000 Manufacturers of all kinds................. 3,000,000 Landlords and their dependents, fishermen and miners................................... 800,000 Persons engaged in commerce.................. 200,000 Non-industrious poor......................... 500,000 Clergy and lawyers........................... 200,000 Civil servants, army and navy................ 500,000
Total..................................... 8,500,000
But the number set down to manufactures here is probably as much too high. In proportion to the total population, as the total itself is in excess of the fact.
This book is provided by FunNovel Novel Book | Fan Fiction Novel [Beautiful Free Novel Book]