Effectiveness of Policies on Effects of Death in England

Effectiveness of Policies on Effects of conclusion in EnglandHow in effect(p) were administration policies in mitigating the effects of shortage in England during the period 1500 1850?INTRODUCTION waitress up paucity in a modern dictionary and you will see it defined as scarcity, but in 16th and 17th century England dearth could for m whatsoever mean death. Although the recite is near large, a dearth or scarcity (mainly applied to grain, which made up the staple viands of beer and bread) originated from the now quaint word dear meaning expensive. And when food was too expensive the bulk of the universe of discourse would starve despite the philanthropy of the wealthy and the inadequate scant(p) laws, which changed little for centuries after its first incarnation under Queen Elizabeth I. This was seen, particularly before the enlightenment, but surviving into in the 18th century, as the soil of the poor themselves who perhaps inadvertently had overloaded their sin quota a nd brought forth the wrath of divinity who then visited upon the ill-starred sinners bad harvests and the consequential famines that followed.For the removal of those heavenly judgements which our manifold sins and provocations have most on the nosely deserved, and with which Almighty God is pleased to visit the iniquities of the land by a grievous scarcity and dearth of diverse articles of comestible and necessaries of life1Although this might sound like a Cromwellian outburst it was actually written in the mid-18th century, providing proof positive for the masses that any misfortune which might a swot up (death, famine, etc.) was non by any fault of the ruling elite, but by powers beyond even kings, despite their divine rights.But just in case the religious concept was not decorous to quell any disturbances arising out of a starving population, laws had to be passed which, for example, forbade meetings of more than three men, and of not more than a dozen to be assembled at anytime or anywhere.As with everything, words have a history. They ar moulded by historical events and people. But they do not usually expire completely, instead they change.Dearth was a far more ominous and ghoulish word to the people of the 16th, 17th, and 18th century than it is to the modern ear.During the 17th century, starting in the late 16th, Governments were distasteful to intervene in periods of dearth, though a solve of protectionism was practised, to offset extremes of supply and demand, abundance and dearth, which was altered and rewrite when needs be. With a minimum and maximum price allowable for the exporting and importing of grain. A altogether free market did not arrive until 1570. But as the price restrictions were instituted at a topical anaesthetic and not judicatureal level the laws were not difficult to circumvent. Smuggling, for example, was practised, and thriving to get away with, and it is true that export was probably widely engaged upon. Add to this such things as bribery and corrupt local officials and it is easy to imagine a thriving black market sector within the price constraints.This state of personal matters begs the question of why did rudimentaryised government distance itself from intervention in the corn trade, and leave it to localised administration to implement any government protectionist policies? Opinions vary amongst historians but just two possibilities posited cite the city of Londons preoccupation with by and large its own affairs, with its own idiosyncratic system, and the fact that abundance and dearth were largely regional and varied at different times and in different parts of the country. When central government did intervene, due to a particularly bad dearth, it is questionable whether intervention was instigated with an altruistic motive through with(predicate) improvement of some of the more dreadful sufferings of the populace, or with a view to quell any affection that might arise. Anoth er interesting government policy that was sometimes practiced was the demonisation of alcohol, hoping that the populace would more easily subsist on more bread and less beer. When deaths from epidemic diseases, which were ubiquitous in this era, are taken into consideration, mortality rates still show a definite rise in old age of serious dearth. new-fashioned era economic problems are usually controlled by such methods as usage of the cash flow and trade agreements between different nations or economic blocs. But there was a tradition, which tailed off during the course of the 18th century, of sustaining a viable price/market equilibrium by operator of monitoring disturbance and discontent amongst the populace. This method, a fairly simple equation, disturbance = government intervention, form low-level intervention to more extreme protectionist legislation. Even in pre-industrial agrarian societies autarky was a unalterable goal for government but seldom r each(prenominal)ed sim ply because what commodity might be abundant in one country might be scarce in another. Also it must be borne in mind that a striking deal disturbances, some violent, were the only means at a disenfranchised populace inclination to express grievances. Often, particularly in depressed periods, disturbance and rioting were so endemic as to march these events or rebellions of the belly2 as hardly worth signaliseing upon by contemporary commentators and modern historians alike. A comment by Professor Barnes is fairly typical,In general these disturbances were more or less alike, and hence postal code is gained by giving a detailed account of each one 3Dearth was, in these times, not only a fairly frequent situation but was part of the popular consciousness. It was ever open in the minds of government and governed alike. In the case of government, future dearths could cause a considerable threat to prevalent order and social stability, thus causing some deal of worry.In these ti mes of no effective policing agency, social stability was maintained by the prevailing ruling elites ideology, which involved a complex inter-relationship between government and governed, crown and nobility, landowners and workers and the monitoring by government of dearth can, with historical evidence, be seen as a major factor in the maintenance of social stability in the post-feudal/ emergent industrial-capitalist society. An additional problem for government was the fact that dearth was difficult to foresee and could arise within a short period of time. In a society going through fundamental structural changes, the rise of a merchant class, for example, dearth was a perennial problem, and a major one. The ruling elites had a corporeal fear of fermentation amongst the labouring poor, who themselves had very justifiable grievances. Indeed, it must have been patently plain amongst some(prenominal) of the poor, despite lack of education, that it was their toil that kept the nobi lity in such splendour. This is not to say that frequently of the populace, perhaps the majority, accepted their lot in life. Manynever took noe lewd course for to rong any man. Nor in so far rune about the country as others have done for corne took it by violence.4What was the poors understanding of the courses of dearth? These were varied, apparently bad harvests and religious superstition played a part, but also the system of enclosure was fancy to be a cause. In effect, enclosure acted as a means to raise the price of corn, and often accentuated the problem of dearth. Others believed that dearth was caused deliberately by speculators to whom dearth would have been financially advantageous. Thus, dearth was caused by,many loaders that debase upp whoole loades and carry it away and so make corne at such an excessive rate although there is corne enough5This demonisation of middlemen was expediently taken up by government, who pronounced againstevill disposed persons untha nkfull to God and without pitty towards poore men, who by their engulf of grayne and other abuses will make want amidst plentifulness and continew still the affliction of the poore by their malice6This was not merely propaganda. Some measures to control middlemen were indeed placed on statute.Why events such as the Peterloo despatch had not happened earlier was in no small measure due to the fact that before the influx of agricultural workers into the newly industrialised towns and cities, practically everyone was illiterate apart from the ruling elites, and the organisation of any expression was hampered by the fact that dialects varied so much, thus even nearby villagers had some bar comprehending each other. Also, as England changed from a subsistence economy to a money economy and agriculture became more commercialised, dearths decreased in frequency. In a subsistence economy, such as in the feudal period, there was little incentive for peasants to experience more than they could subsist on as this would be surplus that could not be capitalised on, as in a money economy. Subsequently dearth usually meant that although grain was scarce, there would be just enough to subsist on. Very bad harvests though, frequently led to mass starvation and deaths. Dearths and famines were interpreted as natures way of balance. If the population grew too large, then this would result in too many mouths to feed, leading(p) to famine and deaths which would bring the population down to manageable proportions. In Malthus book An essay on the article of belief of population he argued just that.7 Malthus the clergyman even argued against any poor relief, as this would upset what he saw as natures, checks and balances.Poor relief, instituted by government, was as a result of a great famine of the 1590s, (at this time in Englands history there were indeed too many mouths to feed, which went somehow towards a vindication of Malthus theory).CONCLUSIONBetween 1500 and 1850 En gland was in a transitional period from a post-feudal, largely mercantile society into an industrial/capitalist society. As peasant workers migrated into the new industrial cities and towns society underwent a fundamental change. Workers began to congregate in much larger numbers than the agricultural society of scattered villages. subsequently the enlightenment people were no longer so willing to accept dearths and famines as existence an infallible occurrence in a strictly hierarchical world with God at the apex, and began to question government excuses and reasons for dearths and famines. But government was spared increased disturbance and social unrest simply because dearths became less commonplace. The Peterloo massacre of 1819, which was a peaceful demonstration against the corn laws as they stood at that time, was due more to the ineptitude of local magistrates and evenhandedly drunken soldiers, than to the demonstration itself, which might easily have passed off peaceful ly. Therefore this event really lends itself to being somewhat out of context within the period discussed in this essay.Paradoxically, once the socio-economic conditions made it more well-off for peasants to look elsewhere to hire their labour in a money-economy, this could often make their plight worse. Landlords, at a time when peasants were virtually their property, at least had to ensure that their workers were sufficiently fed and nourished to work. When workers started working(a) for money, there was no such check or balance, if the worker could not afford food he would starve.From this period, particularly the early period of the 15th and 16th centuries, a paucity of written records of dearth is an obvious impediment to historians. These were not written about in the main because many, if not most, contemporary writers simply did echo that there was any real need for these events to be written down and recorded. And as written records did increase, the occurrence of dearth became less for the reasons discussed above. To people living at the time, dearths and famines were events which they probably thought would last in perpetuum, and as they varied in occurrence and in different regions at different times, a truly comp systematic record is problematic for the modern historian. The corollary to this situation is that the effectiveness of government to mitigate the effects of dearth in this period is difficult to gauge. The fact that wars and epidemics were also prevalent during this period adds a further difficulty to an assessment when attempting to link dearth, and particularly famine, to morbidity rates as a determinant towards the assessment of government success in the temperance of dearths and famines.It would be fair to say though, that government was successful merely because of the fact that society held together, unlike revolutionary France. But not so much as in the amelioration of the conditions under which the poor laboured, but success ful in that no major riots are recorded. Therefore it could be argued that government was successful in mitigating, if to mitigate is taken in the meaning of as to lessen, social unrest and disorder and maintaining the status quo.Altruism towards its subjects was not high on the agenda of government and crown, and where it was practiced towards the poor it was the mainly the result of a perceived Christian duty towards relieving the lot of the poor, rather than any benevolent motive, and an aid, through the poor law, in maintaining social order.To summarise with the aid of religion, protection of subsistence living standards by the means of poor relief, price control and demonisation of middlemen, along with the fact that any disturbances or riots that did occur were regional, thus preventing a general nationwide uprising successive governments through 1500 1850 could be deemed to have been effective towards the mitigation of the effects of dearth and famine.ReferencesRose, R.B. E ighteenth ascorbic acid Price Riots and Public Policy in Early Modern England. International Review of Social History, 6. kingly VanGorcum, The Netherlands, 1961.R.B. Outhwaite, Dearth, Public Policy and Social Disturbance in England 1550 1800, Macmillan, London, 1991. tush Walter and Keith Wrightson, Dearth and the Social Order in Modern England, Rebellion, appropriate Protest and the Social Order, ed. Slack, Cambridge University Press, 1984.Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 20001Footnotes1 Page 15, R.B. Outhwaite, Dearth, Public Policy and Social Disturbance in England, 1550 1800, Macmillan, London, 1991.2 Page 278, Rose, R.B. Eighteenth Century Price Riots and Public Policy in Early Modern England. International Review of Social History, 6. Royal VanGorcum, The Netherlands, 1961.3 Ibid.4 Page 114, John Walter and Keith Wrightson, Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England, Rebellion, P roper Protest and the Social Order, ed. Slack, Cambridge University Press, 1984.5 Page 116, Ibid.6 Page 117, Ibid.7 Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.