'Two factors which affected the Stuart economy of 1600-1660\r'

'The Stuart saving is ever difficult to analyse. Unfortunately due to rudimentary records we only become a earthy idea of the sparing growth that England underwent during this era. For model we do not dumbfound richly ideal records that state the exact tribe size at the time. We also thus do not have accurate records on the delivery either entirely from parish records and events during this result it is comfort realizable to book informed final results on what the deliverance was like, and the factors that affect it.\r\nThe first thing that is important to reputation when discussing the economy is the universe size. According to records prep are in parishes at the time tribe was generally on the ontogeny and go up from 4 to 5 million amidst 1600 and 1660. only although the macrocosm did rise comfortably it was certainly not a unbendable increase and went through phases of decline as well as increase. Surprisingly, according to reading now available, some years burial place were actually higher(prenominal) than baptism rates, offering a state decline.\r\nHowever due to the fact that these records are sometimes incomplete it is not possible to give completely accurate figures active the changes in population during this era. Some historians get by that these changes in population growth station to the fact that the Stuart economy was grandly agrarian. This speculation is widely accepted as be true, it successfully answers the reason for real drastic changes in the population size in some areas as agrarian economy can be easily illogical by bad winters and poor harvests.\r\n too the records of bad harvests coincide with drops in population during this full stop, apprizeing that the economy of the Stuart era was finding it very difficult to defend up with demand. In tack together to combat this rise in demand, farmers would need to innovate and experiment with sunrise(prenominal) crops in graze to compete. Some his torians indicate that this goal due to the population increase led to a ‘ farm revolution as on that point is conclusion that many a(prenominal) another(prenominal) villages follow the cin one casept of confines in order to become more(prenominal)(prenominal) productive.\r\nThis commercialization of kingdom is model by many to be more popular than the previously take method of subsistence agriculture. (Growing enough to feed you and your speedy family. ) This technique of enclosure meant farmers were able to be more productive and conform to higher demands and is generally accepted as a more efficient system than subsistence body politic. This enclosure method of once community possess fields is thought to be the scribble of early capitalism in England, the commercialisation of the fields is and then thought to be brought about by the pressures of a population on the increase.\r\nBut were farmers of this period ordain to innovate, experiment and try rece nt techniques? say found in the diary of an fair farmer of the period is a difficult argument that farmers were willing to trial impudent crops. Robert Loder left a diary concerning his farming and the changes he made to his techniques and crops. It is possible to take aim that this ordinary farmer was one of many who experimented in order to boost their takings. However it is mute possible to argue that there was a strong amount of mercenary farmers who did not adopt these vernal techniques nevertheless there is no evidence to suggest this.\r\nSome historians also use examples such as the adoption of tobacco crops in England as a tell beak of evidence for how adventuress and innovative farmers could be once convinced of the potential of the new farming enterprise. notwithstanding the evidence presented for innovation and experiment there is strong evidence that suggests that farmers struggled to save up up with demand. Sources found for some areas of England suggest that there were huge rises in prices during this period due to inflation. This evidence is known as the Phelps Brown price index.\r\nAlthough this is one of the nigh commonly used sources, due to escape of information it only covers certain areas of England, primarily the south meaning that it is hard to speak these price rises across England however it is the trounce information available. This rise in prices is evidence suggesting that the farmers of the Stuart economy had great difficulty scorn all their innovation and experimentation to keep up with demand. However some historians ease disagree. So the key question still unanswered is whether the farmers were able to keep up with constantly growing demand.\r\nObviously it is highlighted by bad harvests how susceptible the agrarian economy was to very cold long winters and the frank problems this could make water. However equally it can be argued that through innovation and experimentation farmers managed to meet demand, however evidence of heavy inflation during the Stuart period leads many historians to the conclusion that resources were merely and that the economy due to reliance on uncontrollable variables such as last was not able to keep up with demand.\r\nHowever on the other give it is argued by some that the farmers willingness to implement new techniques and methods of farming lead to change magnitude productiveness and was able to keep up with increased demand. However due to lack of concrete evidence this issue is still in many historians opinions open to interpretation. Another key factor in the knowledge of the Stuart economy was diligence. Although industry only made up for around 10% of the economy it is still an important area to analyse to have a full understanding of the economic changes to took place in the Seventeenth century.\r\n foremost it is commonly thought that the English industrial techniques were inferior to those of Europe. Most goods were thought to have been p roduced at home and sold locally. This technique of production suggests an undeveloped industry in England, however these limitations in manufacturing were overcome via exportation to the advanced Europe. The main industry in England at this time was textiles, located in eastward Anglia.\r\nIn this period bleak woollen cloth would be produced and thusly exported to other countries in order to create a finished product, such as the Netherlands who were thought to be the leading industrial nation of the times. The reason for exporting was strictly because England lacked the techniques and resources to manufacture such products. As farming was the leading source of income in England it is thought that many industrial workers were involved in agriculture as well as the manufacturing of textiles.\r\nAlthough many combined farming with manufacturing and production some did seek industry as full-time employment usually through the ‘putting-out system. Besides textiles England als o produced sear, mainly mine in the north-east of England. As capital of the United Kingdom grew in population the North East was able to produce more and more coal to meet demands, although limitations in engine room prevented mining below the surface. However transporting vast quantities of coal is thought by many historians to have been a problem.\r\nRoads in this period were thought to be in quite a bad state, and therefore much of the coal mined was transported by sea. This transportation via sea is important. In order to transport such great amounts of coal England you would need a merchant flutter and Royal Navy to provide protection. Despite these measures the fleets that travelled between the North-East and capital of the United Kingdom still suffered attacks during the wars England had with the Dutch. This is evident when we look at the prices of coal and see that prices doubled during this period suggesting heavy losses from attack.\r\nIn conclusion it is probably righ t to suggest that industry looked for short-term solutions to meet the demands it faced, although no new techniques or technological advances are evident, this period did see the development of external trade, a key feature of the Stuart economy with the development of overseas colonies. However it can be argued that changes in agriculture and innovation were more significant, however it is still somewhat important to understand that the Stuart economy did not notwithstanding rely on agriculture alone.\r\n'