371 theless showed a relatively positive situation of tax collection during the years 1742-43; other bailiwicks in the county were more seriously affected. At all levels the civil officials behaved in a passive manner — as did the decisionmaking center in Stockholm - which to a large degree was a result of lacking resources. Considering Barrington Moores Jr’s argument that every society has a social contract where the limits for the exercise of power are constantly renegotiated, it can be said that the field of negotiations during the uprising of Dalecarlia was completely torn up. The conflict was total and all interaction broke down. In Närke, the military marches through the county on several occassions during the war 1741—43 were heavy burdens for the peasants and also brought about much additional work for the local administrators. In this situation, the otherwise passive peasants protested against these burdens, and on some occassions actually demanded, on a local level, higher compensation than the regulations prescribed. The peasants of Närke also gave vent to a certain dissatisfaction in connection with the uprising of Dalecarlia. The peasants gathered and threatened to revenge the men of Dalecarlia. But this development had no conCrete results. The political culture of Närke seems to have been characterized by the large amount of tenants on noble land having a generally weak position and a large proportion of persons of rank. Unlike the bailiwick of Säter, there are few traces of peasant activity on a lower level. Nor do the members of the parliament seem to have been particularly active between the sessions of the parliament. The peasants might grit their teeth in discontent, but they only dared to come forth when peasants in other areas stood up against the autorities. That the bailiff in Västernärke operated in a totally different climate than that of Säter bailiwick is clearly demonstrated by the issue of the forced collection of the tenants’ on noble land tax arrears during the years of dearth in the 1770’s. Many tenants simply left their farms before the bailiff could collect all taxes. The law gave the bailiff the right to collect that which was due from the noble owners of the farms, but in spite of pressure from above, they normally hesitated to do so with direct reference to their fear of the noblemen. The administration of the loans of grain which went to Säter bailiwick during both periods of famine and to Västernärke during the years 1772—73 has been especially investigated since the relationship of Crown and subjects here was put to the test. This was a delicate balancing act for the Crown: on the one hand, one wanted to collect the taxes, but on the other, there was the risk of reducing the ability of the subjects to pay their taxes on a long-term basis if the measures taken were too harsh and if one refused to help peasants in need through loans of grain and with tax deferments. In Västernärke, the common people appears to have been generally passive; here the bailiff took care of all applications and distribution as well. A contributing factor can be that the grain shortage only affected the most impoverished peasants.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=