Kovacsics József: A történeti statisztika forrásai (Budapest, 1957)
Angol nyelvű összefoglaló
and the territories under military government (the so-called T ernes -province). By summarising the estimates concerning the counties, he came to the conclusion that the population of the whole country was 2 528 598. Later on, other authors referring to the 1715—1720 conscription cited, instead of returning to the original source, the estimates of Acsády which were very carefully elaborated and seemed highly acceptable. Therefore, if we want to appraise correctly the conscriptions from the point of view of historical statistics, it is indispensable to control Acsády's computations. The whole population of the country was first counted in 1787. Concluding backwards from the data of this census of population, Acsády's estimates seem unquestionably too low. The natural increase of population may be estimated at one per cent annually, or at 80—90 per cent for the years between 1720 and 1787. The number of immigrants and of their descendants may be estimated at 900 000— 1 000 000 in 1787. Thus, the probable number of population for 1720 lies somewhere between 3 850 000 and 4 100 000, or round about 4 million. The control o£ Acsády's computations produces several other proofs in favour of this estimate. In the light of a more accurate examination it seems that he has committed several serious errors in his computations which resulted in underestimating the number of population not registered by the census. It seems certain that the • conscriptions which were carried out hurriedly and, in addition, were in many cases sabotaged by the* conscribed and the conscriptors, included a much smaller percentage of the population than it was supposed by Acsády and his followers. Thus, the material of the conscriptions, in spite of their unique value, cannot be considered as a sufficient source for estimating population numbers or for information concerning the agricultural or industrial situation. In order to get reliable data, more complex investigations are necessary. The conscriptions confronted with, and complemented by, other sources will remain the main basis of such investigations. DATA GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF THE THERESIAN URB ARIAL REGULATION. In Hungary the general regulation and unification of the various feudal (urbarial) burdens encumbering the serfs became particularly urgent from the first decades of the 18th century. The ever growing costs of State administration and of the maintenance of the then organised regular army urged the State to the continuous augmentation of the tax burden. This was combined with the tendency to protect the serfs — who were left practically alone to bear the burden of the State taxes — from the similarly growing demands of the landlords. On the 1764—1765 diet of the Estates of the Realm Maria Theresia proposed a general regulation of the feudal service statutes; but the proposition was not accepted. Then she tried to accelerate settling of urbarial processes and the grievances of the serfs, through the Council of the Governor-General. But the peasant actions which started in the spring of 1765 and spread ever since over a growing area, called for a more resolute and more rapid solution. Finally, on the 29th December 1766, the Queen introduced a uniform urbarial system into the six TransDanubian counties which were the focuses of peasant actions. During the following years she gradually expanded this regulation to most parts of the country,with the exception of the Banat of Temes, Croatia —Slavonia and Transylvania. The introduction of the new regulation was directed by special Royal Commissioners sent to the counties. Direct administrative work was performed by the county staff.
