It could be argued that the reason for the rising population was that immigration into the country could be partly to blame, such hard times as the Irish Potato Famine in the 19th Century had forced more people into Britain on top of the normal amount of immigrants. Although, at first glance it could be seen that this could be the sole reason for population rise, it is important to look at the amount of people leaving the country as well. Many people left to pursue a new life, dismayed by the crammed and grimy life in Britain’s towns and cities and some farmers and labourers who had been hit hard by the lacking agricultural professions, thought it better to set up home in counties such as the United States and Australia.
In the latter half of the 18th Century, the death rate started to fall slightly and has continued to fall to the present day; figures show (P.F. Speed, 1986) that in 1780 the death rate was 28.8, where as in 1840 it had declined to 20.80. Historians differ in opinion as to why the death rate begin to decline, one idea is that a large amount of deaths were caused through excessive drinking, once the government put a tax on spirits, this reduced the amount of people consuming alcohol. This is a difficult idea to back up, as there is no accurate way of knowing how widespread the drinking of spirits was at this time.
Another notion is that the death rate decreased due to better medical care, better food and improvements in the textile industry. Although it was true that medical care was advancing, it would be unlikely to advance enough to have such an effect at this time, although changes in agriculture meant that better quality food could be produced and transported via newly built turnpike roads or canals.
Other factors to consider when looking at the death rate are the common causes for death at in the 18th/19th century. Larger causes were the Bubonic plague, the Black Death and famine – the plague did not visit the country again after 1666 and famine has not occurred since the early 18th Century, thus helping people to live a longer life.
It has been suggested that towns and cities on a whole were becoming healthier. Better water supplies had been built and it could be that this had an impact too. On the whole however, the only argument we know to be true is that of the plague and famine.
It would seem tempting to look at the birth rate and presume that with a population rise of such significance that this must be on a constant rise – this would however be incorrect. In the latter half of the 18th century and perhaps the beginning of the 19th century the birth rate was indeed expanding, however most historians would agree that since (approximately) 1850’s the birth rate has been in decline.
Sir Thomas Malthus argued that the initial increase in population was largely due to the rise in birth rate – writers such as Malthus claimed that poorer families were encouraged to have more children due to the introduction of the Speenhamland system of poor relief. This system came into play in 1795 while the price of food was beginning to rise due to imports of cheap food becoming limited as a result of Britain’s involvement in the French Wars and a series of poor harvests. The Old Poor Law was becoming outdated and the need for the system to alter was becoming obvious. It was for this reason that the Speenhamland system was set up – this system subsidised those individuals who were on a low wage by paying them an allowance of a certain amount in line with the price of bread at that time. The more family members there were, the money there was received.
‘That is to say, when the Gallon Loaf of Second Flour, Weighing . [3.9 kg] shall cost 1s. then every poor and industrious man shall have for his own support 3s. weekly, either produced by his own or his family's labour, or an allowance from the poor rates, and for the support of his wife and every other of his family, When the Gallon Loaf shall cost 1s. 4d., then every poor and industrious man shall have 4s. weekly for his own, and 1s. and 10d. for the support of every other of his family. And so in proportion, as the price of bread rise or falls (that is to say) 3d. to the man, and 1d. to every other of the family, on every 1d. which the loaf rise above 1s.’
By order of the Meeting.
W. BUDD, Deputy Clerk of the Peace.
Malthus argued that that providing additional income for each child of poorer families would encourage the working class to have more children, thus not helping the rising population. This idea will always remain opinion rather than fact however even if it was so that the Speenhamland System made having children financially beneficial, this system was only in certain (mainly rural) areas of the country, rather than nationwide, meaning this would not effect the majority of the population and therefore would be unlikely to account for the rise in population. Obviously Malthus’ main concern that with the rising population, food production would not be able to keep up and eventually Britain would suffer from famine. In this case, Malthus was incorrect - the Speenhamland System still went ahead and eventually became quite widespread and did not result in famine – in one respect though, Malthus’ pessimistic attitude to the rise in population helps us today, as it was through his ideas that John Rickman carried out the first national census in 1801.
Some historians place a lot of stress on the factors that influenced the age that women had children. The age at which a woman married often controlled the amount of children that she had. May (1993) tell us that ‘The average age that most women married was between 24 – 27 years old, reducing child-bearing years by a third’. There would seem to be evidence that would suggest the age at which marriages took place decreased, therefore decreasing the age at which women would have their first child, clearly the earlier a woman has a child, the more time she has to have more children, this would have been a more important factor in the 19th century as infant mortality was extremely high. Firstly, the apprentice system declined during this time, at one point it would not have been uncommon for young men to live with their employer whist learning a trade. During this time they would have been unable to marry, however instead the breakdown in this system meant that men begun to earn their maximum earnings earlier through training in such industries as textiles and coal mining (required little or no training, yet becoming very accessible) and did not have to wait to marry. Secondly, it is suggested that the growing demand for labour in growing cities and towns meant that child labour rose – when having children most people would agree that they would have to be financially stable, if a child could be sent out to work at a young age then this could keep the family stable or even improve their finances.
It would seem that since the very beginning of the population rise in the 18th century, historians have argued over the cause, whether it be birth rate, death rate or migration. All of these factors could and probably have had an influence on the population to a point, however due to mainly, lack of accurate statistics it will always be open for debate which had most effect.
Bibliography
Floud, R and McCloskey, D (Eds) The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume One, Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge,
Floud, R and McCloskey, D (Eds) The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume Two, Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge,
Hill, C P (1985) British Economic and Social History, Fifth Edition, Bath: Pitman Press
May, T (1993) An Economic and Social History of Britain 1760 – 1970, Essex: Longman Group
Speed, P F (1986) British Social and Economic History, Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd,
[], Accessed on 01/12/04
