Not event this one on England in 1760? For shame!
Previously to 1760 the old industrial system obtained in
England; none of the great mechanical inventions had been
introduced; the agrarian changes were still in the future. It is
this industrial England which we have to contrast with the
industrial England of to-day. For determining the population of
the time we have no accurate materials. There are no official
returns before 1801. A census had been proposed in 1753, but
rejected as 'subversive of the last remains of English liberty.'
In this absence of trustworthy data all sorts of wild estimates
were formed. During the American War a great controversy raged on
this subject. Dr Price, an advocate of the Sinking Fund,
maintained that population had in the interval between 1690 and
1777 declined from 6,596,075 to 4,763,670. On the other hand, Mr
Howlett, Vicar of Dunmow, in Essex, estimated the population in
1780 at 8,691,000, and Arthur Young, in 1770, at 8,500,000 on the
lowest estimate. These, however, are the extremes in either
direction. The computations now most generally accepted are those
made by Mr Finlaison (Actuary to the National Debt Office), and
published in the Preface to the Census Returns of 1831. These are
based on an examination of the registers of baptisms and burials
of the eighteenth century. But the data are deficient in three
respects: because the number of people existing at the date when
the computation begins is a matter of conjecture; because in some
parishes there were no registers; and because the registration,
being voluntary, was incomplete. Mr Finlaison, however, is stated
to have subjected his materials to 'every test suggested by the
present comparatively advanced state of physical and statistical
science.'
Now according to Mr Finlaison, the population of England and
Wales was, in 1700, 5,134,516, in 1750, 6,039,684, an increase of
not quite a million, or between 17 and 18 per cent. In the first
half of the century. in 1801 the population of England and Wales
was 9,187,176, showing an increase of three millions, or more
than 52 per cent. In the second half.8 The difference in the rate
of increase is significant of the great contrast presented by the
two periods. In the former, England, though rapidly increasing in
wealth owing to her extended commercial relations, yet retained
her old industrial organisation; the latter is the age of
transition to the modern industrial system, and to improved
methods of agriculture.
The next point to consider is the distribution of population.
A great difference will be found here between the state of things
at the beginning of the eighteenth century, or in Adam Smith's
time, and that prevailing now. Every one remembers Macaulay's
famous description in the beginning of his history of the
desolate condition of the northern counties. His picture is borne
out by Defoe, who, in his Tour through the Whole Island (1725),
remarks: 'The country south of Trent is by far the largest, as
well as the richest and most populous,' though the great cities
were rivalled by those of the north. if we consider as the
counties north of Trent Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire,
Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire,
Nottinghamshire, and Staffordshire (about one-third of the total
area of England), we shall find on examination that in 1700 they
contained about one-fourth of the population,10 and in 1750 less
than one-third, while in 1881, they contained more than
two-fifths; or, taking only the six northern counties, we find
that in 1700 their population was under one-fifth of that of all
England, in 1750 it was about one-fifth, in 1881 it was all but
one-third.
In 1700 the most thickly peopled counties (excluding the
metropolitan counties of Middlesex and Surrey) were
Gloucestershire, Somerset, and Wilts, the manufacturing districts
of the west; Worcestershire and Northamptonshire, the seats of
the Midland manufactures; and the agriculture counties of Herts
and Bucks - all of them being south of the Trent. Between 1700
and 1750 the greatest increase of population took place in the
following counties:
Lancashire increased from 166,200 to 297,400, or 78 per cent.
Warwickshire " 96,000 " 140,000, " 45 "
The West Riding " 236,700 " 361,500, " 52 "
of Yorkshire
Durham " 95,000 " 135,000, " 41 "
Staffordshire " 117,200 " 160,000, " 36 "
Gloucestershire " 155,200 " 207,800, " 34 "
Cornwall, Kent, Berks, Herts, Worcestershire, Salop, Cheshire,
Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland each increased
upwards of 20 per cent.
The change in the distribution of population between the
beginning of the eighteenth century and Adam Smith's time, and
again between his time and our own, may be further illustrated by
the following table. The twelve most densely populated counties
and their density to the square mile were:
I don't know, I think Luke might be able to take this. I consider Mech Vader to be stronger than AOTC Anakin and Luke held his own against Vader really well. Yeah he lost, but he could still compete with him. Look at when Anakin loses his arm, after that he lays there on the ground for a long time. Luke loses his hand, and keeps going. Granted that's less to lose, but it didn't hurt him nearly as much as Anakin's did.
I would have to say ESB Luke too, partially because of how stupid Anakin is.
Originally posted by Emperor Revan
I don't know, I think Luke might be able to take this. I consider Mech Vader to be stronger than AOTC Anakin and Luke held his own against Vader really well. Yeah he lost, but he could still compete with him. Look at when Anakin loses his arm, after that he lays there on the ground for a long time. Luke loses his hand, and keeps going. Granted that's less to lose, but it didn't hurt him nearly as much as Anakin's did.I would have to say ESB Luke too, partially because of how stupid Anakin is.
I doubt it, first of all, Anakin has better training. Anakin fought Dooku who is better then Vader, Luke would never have stood a chance against a full blown full powered Vader. H ewould never ever win, AOTC Anakin still has more training them him and although ie arrogant he knows what he's doing unlike Luke who is still practicing. Anakin would own luke.