On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 12:25:55 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 26/10/15 17:52, Chris Dickinson wrote: > > On Monday, 26 October 2015 17:16:50 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > >> On 26/10/15 13:58, Chris Dickinson wrote: > %>< > >>> The area that I study is largely rural. It could only support a limited population. Any surplus had to move somewhere else. > >>> > >> > >> That raises an interesting question. Given the number of recurrences of > >> the plague between the C14th & C17th to what extent did a surplus build up? > > > > > > A standard view is that there was steady population growth after the Black Death. > > > > http://chartsbin.com/view/28k > > > > The last blips were the 1623 famine, the Civil War and the Great Plague. What's more, after the mid-seventeenth century, the home population increased despite migration to Ireland and the colonies. > > There was a substantial visitation of plague in 1558. Vol 1 of Collins > transcription of the Kirkburton PRs lists many burials over the summer, > often one or two parents and children. She contrasts the deaths from > January to the end of September the previous year, 164 vs 64. It's > possible some may have been missed as families may have buried their own > dead: in the Almondbury PRs of the same period its recorded that over a > period of a few days Thomas Scammonden and 4 of his children were buried > by his remaining son and daughter at night, all having died of the plague. > > There was an even more severe outbreak in Kirkburton 1587 and probably > in 1596. In addition to the Civil War deaths there were more deaths by > plague in 1642/3. > > The KB registers don't cover 1623 so it's not possible to say what the > effects were there. Prior to the Black Death there was a famine in the > mid teens of the C14th which seems to have caused considerable loss of > life. To this must be added losses in war, etc. Collins quotes White's > Annals of Leeds and York which adds the effects of plague and the Marian > religious upheaval and suggests that "the third part of the men of > England are said to have been consumed". > > Substantial death tolls are also claimed for the C15th plague outbreaks. > On the whole it seems likely that an upward trend in population would > have been countered by a sequence of set-backs. > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Yes, there were plague and famine in the sixteenth century. Even so, the figures as presented by Wiki below would suggest a substantial increase in population between 1541 and 1601. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England Of course, some areas would not have followed the general trend. Whatever, the national population gew quickly after the 1660s, suggesting that there was an inherent surplus of births over deaths by then. And this was before the 'Agricultural Revolution' really got going. I mentioned the 1623 famine because that is traditionally seen as the last major famine in England. One way that you might be able to determine its severity in your area is by looking at your local probate index and counting the annual quantity. I did this a while back for West Cumberland, not expecting to see any hike (as I was assuming famine would hit the poor more than will-making yeomanry), but got this: 1619 44 1620 49 1621 3 1622 54 1623 158 1624 6 1625 4 1626 35 1627 52 Chris

On 27/10/15 13:07, Chris Dickinson wrote: > I mentioned the 1623 famine because that is traditionally seen as the last major famine in England. One way that you might be able to determine its severity in your area is by looking at your local probate index and counting the annual quantity. I did this a while back for West Cumberland, not expecting to see any hike (as I was assuming famine would hit the poor more than will-making yeomanry), but got this: > > 1619 44 > 1620 49 > 1621 3 > 1622 54 > 1623 158 > 1624 6 > 1625 4 > 1626 35 > 1627 52 That's a very impressive series of figures there, Chris. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk