Introduction
Next Selection Previous Selection
TO PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, &c. Census Office, London, SIR, 1
Mr. Potter was son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a barrister of the Middle Temple. 2
Besides these three ministers, the following members backed the Bill: Lord Hillsborough, Lord Dupplin, Mr. Oswald. 3
Viz., Mr, Thornton, member for the city of York. 4
The districts coincided in all but a few exceptional cases with the poor law unions which had been constituted in 1834. Strictly speaking, therefore, the mapping of the country into districts was made on account of the new Poor Law, not on account of the Registration Act as stated in the text.CENSUS OF 1881.
REPORT
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE, BART., M.P.,
August, 1883 AT no period earlier than the commencement of the present century was it possible to form any trustworthy estimate as to the number of persons inhabiting this country; for all computations founded on domesday books, on subsidy rolls, on payments of poll or hearth tax, and the like, however ingenious they might be, involved of necessity so large an intermixture of guesswork as to deprive their results of any very substantial value.
Uncertainty of estimates of population before this century.
No proposal to ascertain the number of the population by systematic enumeration appears to have been made until the middle of the last century. On March 30th, 1753, Mr. Thomas Potter,1
who sat as member for St. Germans in the House of Commons, brought in a Bill
"for taking and registering an annual account of the total number of the people, and of the total number of marriages, births, and deaths; and also of the total number of the poor receiving alms from every parish and extra-parochial place in Great Britain."
This Bill apparently had the support of the ministry of the day; for among those whose names appear on the back are Mr George Greville, a Lord of the Treasury; Lord Barrington, a Lord of the Admiralty; and Mr. Charles Yorke, the Lord Advocate for Scotland.2
First proposal to have a census in 1753.
Accustomed as we are at the present time to such enumerations, the alarm with which the proposal was received, and the virulence of language with which it was combated, cannot but excite our surprise. "I did not believe," said its chief opponent3
in the Commons,
"that there was any set of men, or, indeed, any individual of the human species, so presumptuous and so abandoned as to make the proposal we have just heard. .... I hold this project to be totally subversive of the last remains of English liberty. .... The new Bill will direct the imposition of new taxes, and indeed the addition of a very few words will make it the most effectual engine of rapacity and oppression that was ever used against an injured people. .... Moreover, an annual register of our people will acquaint our enemies abroad with our weakness."
Another opponent, Mr. Matthew Ridley, stated that he knew by letters from the town he represented, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and from other parts, that "the people looked on the proposal as ominous, and feared lest some public misfortune or an epidemical distemper should follow the numbering." It was further urged that the scheme was costly and impracticable; that it was an imitation of French policy, borrowed from our natural enemies; and that it would not only be a basis for new taxation, but for a conscription. Nor was this latter fear probably without some justification. For Mr. George Greville, a Lord of the Treasury, in supporting the Bill, said that "it will be extremely useful at all times for many useful purposes; and in the case of along war, it will be absolutely necessary. For the usual methods of raising recruits for our army would not then be sufficient. We should be obliged to have recourse to that of obliging each parish to furnish a certain number."
The Bill, thus supported, passed through all its stages in the Commons by large majorities, but was thrown out on the second reading in the House of Lords. Proposal for census in 1753 opposed and rejected.
Nearly half a century passed away before the proposal was renewed; but when the new Bill was introduced, in November 1800, into the House of Commons, it had the advantage of a great change which had apparently occurred in public opinion on the subject of population. The old. fear that the number of the people was falling off, and that an enumeration would betray the inability of the country to furnish a due supply of soldiers for the army, had given place to a new and opposite form, of alarm, namely, that the people were increasing so rapidly as to outstrip the means of subsistence. Among the causes which may be supposed to have brought about this change of opinion, probably the most powerful was the great dearth, which prevailed in the country at the time when the Bill was brought forward much of the tone of both Houses of Parliament being occupied in the year 1800 in discussions on "the present high price of provisions;" while a second cause that may fairly be assumed to have had some influence in the matter, was the attention excited by Malthus's great work of which the first edition was published anonymously in 1798, and taught its readers that there were other aspects of the question of population than the military one.
Census again proposed in 1800.
The Population Bill was brought in by Mr. Abbot, member for Helston, on taken 1801. November 20th, 1800, and passed through all its stages without opposition, The enumeration was made on March 10th in the following year, and has been repeated ever since, without omission, in the first year of each successive decennium.
The recent census was, therefore, the ninth enumeration of the inhabitants of this country. First census taken 1801.
The first four enumerations, namely, those of 1801, 1811, 1821, and 1831, were made by the agency of the overseers of the poor; this being the only or the best machinery available at those dates for the purpose. These overseers collected information concerning the inhabitants of their respective parishes by personal inquiry, no schedules being supplied, as at present, to the householders themselves, and, on the basis of the information thus collected, framed answers to printed questions addressed to them concerning the numbers and occupations of the persons living in their parishes.
As no small proportion of the overseers must have been utterly unfitted for the work, there can be little doubt that the answers returned by them must often have been excessively imperfect and inaccurate. Moreover, as the collection of the requisite data was by no means to be completed by them, as now, in the course of a single day, but to be 'carried on day after day until completion, there must almost unavoidably have been not only many omissions but many double entries, the same individual being present, and therefore enumerated, on different days in different parishes.
Fortunately, however, in enumerations made on a very large scale and by a very large number of enumerators, the opposite inaccuracies of omission and of double entry will always balance each other pretty closely; and we may therefore assume with much confidence that, though the returns made by the overseers in the earlier censuses for individual parishes or other small areas may not improbably have often been extremely inaccurate, yet the total summing up of the results for the country as a whole was not far off the mark; and it is to these totals for the whole country, and not to those for the smaller areas, that after the lapse of so many years the main interest attaches. Method used in the first four enumerations.
In 1841, when the time for the fifth decennial census arrived, the enumeration was carried out by a new machinery. Four years previously the Registration Act had come into force; and, for the purposes of this Act, the whole country had been mapped out into a number of districts,4
each with a superintendent registrar, and these districts again divided into sub-districts, each with a resident registrar, whose duty it was to keep account of the births and deaths in his sub-district; while, presiding over the whole system, was the Registrar General with a staff of assistants in London. It was obvious that such an organisation as this, extending as it did throughout all parts of the country, was well adapted to furnish the framework of the machinery for the work of enumeration; and the business was therefore taken out of the hands of the parochial overseers and entrusted to this new body of local registrars.
Simultaneously with this change, other important alterations were introduced. The overseers, as already mentioned, had collected the requisite information as to the inhabitants of their parishes in any chance way that might seem best to them, and the process of collection had occupied them for an indefinite period. But now each individual householder was furnished with a schedule in which, himself to enter the required particulars as to his household, and the particulars which he was called on to related to all persons sleeping or present in his house on a certain fixed night, alteration which greatly diminished the chance of omission or of double entry, schedules were distributed and collected by special enumerators, each registrar's district being parcelled out by him for this purpose into a number of small sub- divisions or enumeration districts, each of such size that a single person could Conveniently visit all the houses within its boundaries in the course of an ordinary day's work. The schedules, when returned by the householders, were copied by the enumerators into enumeration books, which, after examination and revision by the registrar, were submitted to the superintendent, and, having received his approval and countersign, were forwarded for final tabulation to certain commissioners appointed by the Act to carry out the census.
This new method of enumeration was found to answer so well that it has been continued on each subsequent occasion, the only change in the machinery of any importance being that the place of the commissioners specially named in the Census Act has been taken by the Registrar-General and members of his permanent staff, selected by him for the purpose. The present system introduced in 1841.
The number of enumerators employed in 1831 in distributing, collecting, and copying the householders' schedules was 34,711. To these must be added 2,175 registrars and 630 superintendent registrars, making altogether an organised army of: 37,516 persons engaged in the local collection of the necessary particulars. The central body, by whom the huge mass of details thus collected had to be sifted abstracted, and tabulated, consisted of the Registrar-General and 55 members of the staff of the General Register Office and of 96 additional clerks.
The enumerators received but scanty remuneration for services which were by no means light or. simple; and it is out of the question to expect that an army of men, each of whom is expected to do the work of a fairly adequate clerk while he is paid at a far lower rate, can be raised for a temporary purpose, and that no difficulty shall occur with any of them. It is satisfactory, however, to be able to state that, disregarding a few exceptional cases, the enumerators performed their part, within, the limits of their capacity, quite as well as could reasonably be expected. There were often, it is true,, omissions and inaccuracies which had to be set right afterwards by supplementary inquiries; but such omissions and inaccuracies are the unavoidable incidents of every census, and we have no reason to believe that they were more frequent on the present than on preceding occasions. Indeed, although the difficulty of taking an account of the population necessarily becomes greater and greater at each succeeding decennial period, owing to the rapid growth of the people and the ever--increasing complexity of the areas of local administration, yet it is probable that, owing to the gradual dying out of the prejudices which hung about the earlier censuses, and to the increased experience of the local officials in the process of enumeration, each successive census has been more accurately taken than that which preceded it. Number of persons employed in the enumeration of 1881.
The point in which the enumeration books, as forwarded to the central office by the registrars after local revision, were found to be most deficient, and to show the most serious amount of inaccuracy, was the matter of boundaries. England and Wales have been parcelled out at various times in a multiplicity of ways for diverse purposes; audit has often happened that, when anew parcelling out for some special purpose has been in hand, those entrusted with it have laid out their new areas without any, or with insufficient, regard to pre-existing areas of administration. The boundaries of civil and of ecclesiastical parishes, of municipal and of parliamentary boroughs, of urban and rural sanitary districts, of registration counties and counties the ordinary sense, not to mention numerous other sub-divisions of the country, overlap and intersect each other with such complexity, that the enumerators and the registrars in a vast number of cases failed altogether to unravel their intricacy. Nor is this to be wondered at, seeing that often no official or authoritative statement the exact boundary of an area was procurable. This was more especially, but by means solely, the case with the ecclesiastical districts, the boundaries of which found to be often very uncertain, and subject of dispute between neighbouring incumbents. In these, and in all other similar cases, we laboriously investigated the evidence set before us, and finally adopted that conclusion which seemed most warrantable. These difficulties must, of necessity, have presented themselves to the compilers of former censuses, but the difficulties increase each census with the formation of new areas. One great addition to the labour on this occasion was caused by the institution in the preceding decade of sanitary districts. The rural sanitary districts, coinciding as they do generally either with entire registration areas or with the parts of such areas as remain after subtraction of any urban sanitary district within their limits, involved but little additional expenditure of time and labour; but the urban sanitary districts, nearly a thousand in number, with areas defined very frequently without any apparent regard to other administrative areas, added very materially to the toil of our work, and to the time required for its accomplishment.
We may illustrate this bewildering confusion of boundaries by a few examples taken almost at random.
The urban sanitary district of Mossley comprises parts of four registration sub-districts, parts of four parishes, parts of two unions, and parts of three counties, namely, Cheshire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, but only parts of two registration counties, namely, Lancashire and Yorkshire.
The municipal city of York, which, together with the Ainsty, is included for parliamentary purposes in the North Riding, is included for registration purposes in the East Riding, and for all other purposes in the West Biding, while the parliamentary city of York, extending beyond the municipal limits, is partly in the North and partly in the East Riding.
The parliamentary borough of Stoke-upon-Trent consists of parts of six civil parishes arid parts of four unions, and contains four municipal boroughs.
Halifax registration district contains one rural sanitary district and 19 entire urban sanitary districts with part of one other. The boundaries of 13 of these 19 districts do not correspond to any parish boundaries. For instance, the parish of Northowram is thus divided: one part constitutes the urban sanitary district of Northowram, a second part constitutes a portion of the urban sanitary district of Halifax, and a third part forms a portion of Queensbury urban sanitary district, the other portion of which is not only in another parish but in another registration district.
Bury registration district includes one rural sanitary district, and four entire urban sanitary districts with parts of three others. There are in this registration district 12 civil parishes or townships, and of these only two are not divided for registration purposes, the other 10 being split up so as to have portions in two, three, or more registration sub-districts. Moreover, each of six of the parishes contributes parts to two or more sanitary districts.
The parish of Ashton-under-Lyne, at the date of the census, contributed parts to no fewer than six urban sanitary districts, and to one rural sanitary district. It also comprised three registration sub-districts and part of a fourth.
The registration district of Crickhowel contains one rural sanitary district, one entire urban sanitary district and parts of three others. The remaining part of each of these three is not only in a different registration district, but in a different county. Deficiencies in the local returns as regards boundaries.
These examples will suffice to show how complicated were the boundaries of the Areas which we had to deal, and it will be readily understood how enormously this complexity added to the difficulties and labour of our task, difficulties and labour which, under any circumstances, could not but be great, seeing how numerous were the areas of which account was necessarily to be taken.
Those areas were as follows:— 1
England and Wales
1
England
1
Wales
1
North Wales
1
South Wales
52
Counties
95
Parliamentary counties or divisions of counties
198
Parliamentary boroughs,
243
Municipal boroughs,
752
Wards of municipal boroughs
830
Hundreds
715
Petty and special sessional divisions
616
Lieutenancy sub-divisions
7
Cinque Ports and ancient towns (parents ports)
23
Additional members of Cinque Ports and ancient towns
14,926
Civil parishes
34
Ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses
136
Separate constituent parts of such dioceses
6,958
Ecclesiastical parishes that are neither entire mother parishes nor
conterminous with civil parishes9,107
Separate constituent parts of such ecclesiastical parishes
11
Registration divisions
57
Registration counties
630
Registration districts
2,175
Registration sub-districts
966
Urban sanitary districts
184
Various metropolitan areas not included above
Number and kinds of areas dealt with.
Before proceeding to discuss the results of the recent enumeration, there is a Question which it will be well to answer distinctly, so as to prevent any possible misapprehension. What is meant by the population or a given place or area? In population. different countries different answers would have to be given to this question. In some countries those persons only are considered to belong to the population of a place who habitually reside therein, that is to say, who constitute its fixed or permanent inhabitants. In countries where the number of regularly domiciled inhabitants determines many financial arrangements relating to the amount of payments to be made by and to a community, and also is the foundation on which numerous details of municipal and general administration are based, doubtless this definition of the term "population" is that which best answers the purpose. It involves, however, an elaborate arrangement by which, when an enumeration is made, strict account is taken in. each area, not only of the strangers from without who may be temporarily present, but also of those habitual inhabitants who are temporarily absent from their homes. It presents, moreover, the inconvenience, that not only is it difficult to define what constitutes temporary absence or habitual residence, but that a considerable number of persons are without fixed domicile at all, while others have more than one place of residence, to any one of which they may be referred with equal propriety.
A second answer to the question, what is meant by the population of a place, is the signification attached to the term in this country. According to it, the population of a given place or area consists of all those persons who are actually present within its boundaries at a certain fixed moment, and that moment in the recent enumeration was 12 p.m., 3rd April, 1881. All persons who were actually present in a place at that moment, were they natives or foreigners, strangers or habitual residents, were they lodged in houses or ships, or sleeping under a hedge, were alike counted as units in its population, and, besides such persons, no one else was reckoned in. The only exception to the rule was in the case of those few persons who might chance to be passing through the place in railway or other vehicles, and who for manifest reasons could not be taken into account. Such persons, on arriving at their destination in the morning, were counted as belonging to the population of the place from which they then came.
In short, then, by the population of a place is meant in this country its actual
and not its resident
population. For the main purposes to which the census in this country is subservient, it is this actual population of which it is most important to take account. Births, marriages, and deaths are registered in the places where they actually occur, without regard to the question whether the persons concerned were residents or strangers, and must therefore, in order to get true rates, be compared with the actual rather than with the resident population. It may, however, be observed, that, seeing that the enumeration is taken both at an hour in the day and at a season of the year when persons are mostly in their own homes, in all probability actual and resident population are very nearly identical, so far as regards their total amounts. Some absentees, of course, there will be and some strangers, but the two will balance each other with sufficient accuracy for all practical uses. Should there be in any Instance reason to suspect that this is not the case, that is to say, should there have been any unusual cause for temporary congestion or the contrary in a given locality at date of the census, the fact is recorded in a foot-note. Various meanings of the term "population".