Malthus thought that every nation fitted into one of these two types of society (whether their population was controlled by positive or preventive checks) and could explain why they were relatively rich or poor. England was obviously a preventive check society along with most of Western Europe. With ‘low pressure’ demography and standard of living higher, it supports his theory. His theory became the standard argument against social reform because helping the poor would simply decrease death rates and increase birth rates, eventually there would be too many and their income would fall back to equilibrium again, therefore there was no point in trying to help them. Malthus did state population could rise steadily with the expansion on the economy ‘Europe is much more populous now than in the time of Julius Caesar’ (Malthus, 1798). But to put it simply, acceleration of population growth is totally unsustainable. He was proved wrong.
First we must examine what acually happened to the population during the 18th century? The data concerning this period can be ‘sketchy’ to say the least, consulting three separate sources I uncover three separate sets of results. It is only possible to observe the significant shift in growth rate when the estimated data from previous centuries is observed (see appendix 1). The data considered most acurate on the period in question is in The Population History of England, 1541-1871 by Wrigley and Schofield; (see appendix 2). They managed to get a clearer picture of this time period using new methods to ‘fill in the gaps’; namely family reconstitution (linking together records to gain detailed demographics of indiviual parishes) and back projection (enables many demographic measures to be calculated which before were thought unmeasurable). This was possible using the data John Rickman had collected from parish exracts from the century prior to his census. As we can see from the appendix, as the end of the century neared the rate went from a silight level and got greater and greater, rising exponentially, or geometrically. This is an important point but what caused this surge?
It is blatant that for there to be such a shift in the growth rate either mortality must fall or fertility must rise or both. There are a number of measures which can be looked at to deduce which factor played a bigger part, either crude birth rates versus crude death rates or gross reproduction rate (GRR) versus expectation of life at birth e0. The latter is far more statistically sound, GRR is a pure measure of fertility and e0 is a pure measure of mortality, taking the current age structure of the population out of the equation. The approximate increase in GRR in the 18th century is 22% whereas the rise in e0 is just 4%. It is possible to get a clearer picture looking at the ‘long’ 18th century, the same picture is painted once again, GRR is up almost 50% and e0 is up just over 20%. It is obvious from the Schofield & Wrigley compiled that far more of the accelaration in population growth is due to GRR (at the approximate ratio 7:3). Finding the cause of this should reveal the underlying cause for the accelaration.
To solve this issue we can use the data derived from Wrigley’s family reconstitution. The data all points in the same direction: no change in marital fertility, instead the accelaration was brough about by changes in nuptiality; specifically, age of first marriage and a decrease in the proportion of people that were never marrying. Average age of marriage for women went from 26 early in the century to 23 later, for men it went from 27 down to 25 ( PH_Population_1.htm). It is also estimated that the percentage of people whom never married went from 15% in the late 17th century to 7% in the late 18th century. This obviously had the same result. Another notable factor is illegitimacy rose, accounting for 2% of births at the beginning of the century and 6% at the end ( PH_Population_1.htm). Although this is no where near as significant as nuptiality in causing the accelaration it certainly played a part. There was obviously something economic or cultural/social changing which was influencing this shift in nuptiality which was causing the bulk this accelaration to take place, also influencing the other main factors involved i.e. illegitimacy and falling death rate (rising e0).
The changes which occurred were not a swift switch which some Victorian writings on the industrial revolution would lead us to believe, but gradual trends, sensitive to many aspects, some more than others. The increase in e0 was due to a number of factors. Firstly, medical improvements such as the introduction of voluntary hospitals and dispensaries, also medical advice was more readily available. Also with the generous poor laws helping those who couldn’t help themselves, coupled with the speenhamland bread allowance system and higher real income, people ate better. There was more money about due to technical advances and people were feeling more socially responsible. The increased availability of new products such as soap, brick for housing, cheap and washable cotton helped raise hygeine and living standards resulting in longer lives. They arrived due to the new manufacturing methods which were being employed. The industrial revolution was creeping on as the century went on, it changed the country radically. The increase in illegitimacy can be put down to the movement of a great deal of the population away from isolation in small villages, into urban areas, where they could ‘mingle’.
It is evident that nuptiality is very sensitive to economic conditions, both in long and short term. I think that this, along with the population moving to urban areas, are the prime factors which caused the increase in couples marrying. Obviously in the increasingly favourable economic conditions for England have provide good conditions for this to take place.
So why did Malthus’s prediction not come true? According to his theory food production couldn’t have kept up with this geometrically increasing population. Advances such as selective breeding were central to this I believe. I think this because animals could be constantly improved and made more productive. Although improvements in field rotation and new inventions to increase land productivity were probably more central. Slightly more land was taken to yield more crops for the swelling population but the majority of the increase in production came from efficiency. It should also be mentioned that dramatic improvements in the transport infrastructure such as river improvements, roas/turnpikes, international shipping and canals. Soon after the end of the 18th century the country became a net importer of food. It seems where there’s a will to escape a ‘Malthusian Crises’, there’s a way.