369 to general rules. Even if the government departments and sometimes the county governor wanted the local civil officials to comply with formal rules, resources which would have allowed them to do so were largely lacking. This can be observed with particular clarity in the critique from kammarrevisionen (the Department of auditing) which emanated from the formal systemof regulations, but which only seldom led to consequences for the bailiffs or any changes in practice. Competent bailiffs were hard to come by, which can be seen from sources relating to bailiffs’ illness or from deficits discovered. The county governors nevertheless often allowed these persons to retain their positions. In other respects, the local administration can be fitted into the rational bureaucracy: the hierarchy of officials functioned well and the bailiff was a spider in the local web of administration. The bailiff stands forth as an independent executive with subordinate local bailiffs to his fairly free disposal. There were important differences between the two bailiwicks which have been investigated. In Västernärke with a normal taxation systemfor an agricultural area, every 20th daler of taxes kept by the Crown (that is, that which the bailiff was to collect when military and civil holders of allotment had received their wages), was not delivered during the fiscal year. In Säter, the same thing held for every 10th tax daler. The primary reason for this difference was that the major part of the taxes here was levied in charcoal used at the Great Kopparberg blast furnaces and that bergsmän (the mine-owning peasants) functioned as middlemen for these payments. The local civil officials’ possibilities for control were limited. Also the system with chief peasants, responsible for the tax payment of several other peasants, reduced the possibilities of the local officials for supervision. The peasants of Dalecarlia were at the same time inclined to question the demands of the Crown. This is, for instance, true of the transports of tithe in the form of grain to holders of allotment. An important basis of conflict was in all probability the shortage of grain in this area. Previous research on the 19th century characterized the bailiff as a »cashier, accc^untant and controller» - should this description be made to fit the 18th century as well, it must be added that the bailiff functioned as a »negotiator» between the common people and the Crown. During theyears of dearth and social unrest 1740-45 and 1771-75, the conflicts between the Crown and the peasants increased. The picture of an administration thoroughly embued with a goal-oriented rationality at the cost of a formal rationality becomes more apparent. Possibilities for encroaching on the rights of the peasants were thereby opened. Periods of poor harvests were, so to speak, the recessions of the ancien régime and primarily caused by climatic factors. While the ability of the peasants to make payments declined, the hunger24
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=