Introduction
Next Selection Previous Selection
TO PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, &c. Census Office, London, SIR, The eleventh Census of the population of England and Wales was taken on April 1st, 1901. It afforded the means for ascertaining the required information relating to the persons returned as living at midnight on Sunday, March 31st, and also for considering the growth of the population in the hundred years since the first English Census was taken in March, 1801. Before discussing either the results of the recent Census or the growth of the English population during the last inter-censal period, it seems desirable to refer to the history of Census taking in England, to examine the various Census Acts, and to point out some of the principal changes that have taken place, from time to time, in the scope of Census inquiry, and in the organization adopted at successive enumerations. As was stated in the final Report on the Census in 1881, the first proposal in Parliament to ascertain the number of the English population by enumeration was made in the middle of the eighteenth century. Mr. Thomas Potter, a son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Barrister of the Middle Temple, who sat in the House of Commons for St. Germans, brought in a Bill on March 30th 1753, "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 evidently had the support of the Ministry of the time, as it bore the name of a Lord of the Treasury, of a Lord of the Admiralty, and of the Lord Advocate for Scotland. It was, however, opposed with a virulence of language and with notes of alarm which can but cause surprise and amusement to those who have witnessed the small amount of public interest excited by the eleventh English Census. One of the chief opponents of the Bill in the Commons (Mr. Thornton, Member for the City of York) used the following words:— "I did not believe 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." Mr. Matthew Ridley, another opposing Member, stated that his constituents "looked on the proposal as ominous, and feared lest some public misfortune or an epidemical distemper should follow the numbering." The Bill was opposed generally, on the ground that the proposed enumeration would be costly and impracticable, and that it might serve as a basis for new taxation and for conscription. With Government support however, the Bill passed through all its stages in the Commons by large majorities; it was, however, thrown out by the House of Lords on the second reading. The proposal for an enumeration of the English population was not renewed for nearly half a century, and in the meantime public opinion on the subject of Population had materially changed. When the first proposal was made in 1703 it was feared that the population was decreasing, and that an enumeration would expose the inability of the country to supply an adequate army. In 1800 this fear had given place to alarm in an opposite direction—namely, that the population was increasing more rapidly than were the means of subsistence. This change was in some measure due to the great dearth which prevailed in this country at that period, and much time in both Houses of Parliament was consequently, during the year 1800, occupied in discussions on "the present high price of provisions." Public opinion had, moreover, been considerably influenced by Malthus' well-known work on the relations of Population and Subsistence, the first edition of which had been published anonymously in 1798. A Bill "for taking an Account of the population of Great Britain, and of the Increase or Diminution thereof" was brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Abbot, Member for Helston, on November 20th, 1800, and, under the circumstances referred to, passed through all its stages without opposition, and received Royal Assent on December 31st of the same year. This Act, which did not apply to Ireland, provided that "within that part of Great Britain called England the respective Overseers of the Poor, or in default thereof some substantial Householder of every Parish, Township, and Place," shall at the time and in the manner directed "severally take an Account of the number of persons who shall be actually found at the time of taking such Accounts to be within the limits of such Parishes, Townships, and Places respectively," in accordance with the Form prescribed in a Schedule to the Act. It may be noted that the Act created no central authority for the control of Census operations. His Majesty's Printer was instructed "so soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act" to send a sufficient number of printed copies of the "Act and of the Schedule thereto" to the Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks of the "several and respective Counties, Stewartries, Ridings, Divisions, Precincts, Sokes, Franchises, Liberties, Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and Counties Corporate in Great Britain." The Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks were required to distribute "with all convenient speed" these copies among the "acting Justices of the Peace within their respective limits," they were also to cause a sufficient number of copies of the Schedule to the Act to be delivered to the High Constables, "or where there are no High Constables, to such other proper Officers" at the Epiphany Quarter Sessions of the Peace, 1801. The High Constables, or other proper Officers, were directed forthwith to deliver, or cause to be delivered, one of the Schedules to every Rector, Vicar, or Curate, or other Officiating Minister, and "to the Overseer or Overseers of every Extra-Parochial Place," and "if there be no such Overseer therein, then to some one substantial Householder residing within the said Parish, Township, or Extra-Parochial Place." The Overseers or substantial Householders were directed to take "to their assistance the Churchwardens or Chapelwardens, Sidesmen, Parish Clerk, and Vestry Clerk (if any)", and to employ "if they shall think fit, the Constables, Tything-men, Head-boroughs, or other Peace Officers," who were required to "be aiding and assisting therein for that purpose." The Overseers were, on the tenth day of March, 1801, to "proceed to take an account in writing of the number of persons at that time being within the limits of such Parishes, Townships, and Places, respectively, and inform themselves of the several particulars relating to the matters specified in the first three questions in the said Schedule." They were further required to inform themselves on these matters "by proceeding together or separately from house to house or otherwise" as they may judge expedient, and from the information thus ascertained to "prepare an answer or return to the said questions," and afterwards to sign the Form prescribed in the Schedule with their names and qualifications as Overseers or substantial Householders. They were, moreover, authorized and empowered to ask all necessary questions of the persons within the several Parishes, &c., "respecting themselves and the number and quality of the persons constituting their respective families"; and every person "refusing to answer, or wilfully giving a false answer to such questions or any of them" became liable to "forfeit a sum not exceeding Five Pounds, nor less than 40 shillings, at the discretion of the Justice or Justices before whom complaint thereof shall be made." The Justices of the Peace were required "at or so soon as conveniently may be after the said Epiphany Quarter Sessions "to appoint a time and place between the 10th and 30th April, which might be the Easter Quarter Session if they saw fit, for the Overseers or substantial Householders to attend with the returns and answers to the said first three questions in the Schedule; the said Overseers or Householders of each Parish being required so to attend the Justices for the purpose, and to "then and there deliver to the said Justices, in writing signed by themselves, a just and true answer and return to the questions," attested by oath or affirmation. The answers and returns were then to be delivered to the "High Constables or other proper Officers" to be by them transmitted to the several Clerks of the Peace or Town Clerks on or before the 8th of May. It was further enacted that the answers to the fourth and fifth questions in the Schedule should be transmitted by every "Rector, Vicar, or Curate, or other Officiating Minister to their Bishop on or before the 30th of April, and by the Bishops transmitted on or before the 8th of May to the Archbishops, who on or before the 15th of May "shall cause the same to be laid before His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, who shall cause an Abstract thereof to be prepared and laid before both Houses of Parliament within six weeks after the said 10th day of May." It was further provided that the "several Accounts so taken in writing by the Overseers" or other persons for the purpose of enabling them to answer the several questions in the Schedule should be "safely kept and preserved" by the Parish authorities for the time being, to be in due time handed over by them to their successors in Office respectively; and that the answers and returns, duly authenticated by the Overseers and others, should be transmitted with all convenient speed "by the Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks (together with a list of the Parishes, &c., within their respective Counties, &c., from whence no returns have been made to them) to the Officer of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department," and that the returns so received "shall be digested and reduced to order by such Officer as such Secretary of State shall appoint for the purpose." In accordance with Section 9 of the Act, an Abstract of the English returns was to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six weeks of the 15th of May, 1801. We may now consider the precise Questions that were submitted in 1801 to the Overseers, &c., for obtaining "an Account of the Population of Great Britain," and to the Officiating Ministers of the several Parishes (the differentiation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Parishes was still in its infancy) for an Account "of the Increase or Diminution" of the Population. The first Schedule to this Act contained six questions, the first three of which were to be dealt with by the Overseers, &c., the fourth and fifth by the Officiating Ministers, whilst the sixth question applied equally to the Overseers and to the Officiating Ministers, and was in the following words:— "Are there any matters which you think it necessary to remark in explanation of your Answers to any of the preceding Questions ?" The three Questions, to which Overseers were required to find Answers were:— 1st. How many Inhabited Houses are there in your Parish, Township, or Place; by how many Families are they occupied; and how many Houses therein are Uninhabited ? 2nd. How many persons (including Children of whatever age) are there actually found within the limits of your Parish, Township, or Place, at the time of taking this Account, distinguishing Males and Females, and exclusive of Men actually serving in His Majesty's Regular Forces or Militia, and exclusive of Seamen either in his Majesty's Service or belonging to Registered Vessels ? 3rd. What number of Persons in your Parish, Township, or Place are chiefly employed in Agriculture; how many in Trade, Manufactures, or Handicraft; and how many are not comprised in any of the preceding Classes ? It will be noted that in this first attempt to take a Census in Great Britain the inquiry by the Overseers, &c., was of a distinctly simple character, being restricted to the numbers in each Parish, &c., of Houses (distinguishing those uninhabited), Families, and Persons (distinguishing sex), together with a return of the numbers "chiefly employed" (a)
in Agriculture, (b)
in Trade, Manufactures, or Handicraft, and (c)
not included under either of those headings. Having regard to the fact that there had been no previous systematic attempt to number the population of Great Britain, and that civil registration of Births, Deaths, or Marriages had not as yet been established, the fourth and fifth questions in the Schedule were submitted to the Rectors, Vicars, Curates, or other Officiating Ministers of the several Parishes, with a view to supply the means for determining the "Increase or Diminution of the Population." The wording of these two Questions was as follows:— 4th. What was the number of Baptisms and Burials in your Parish, Township, or Place in the several Years 1700, 1710, 1720, 1730, 1740, 1750, 1760, 1770, 1780, and each subsequent year to the 31st Day of December, 1800, distinguishing Males from Females ? 5th. What has been the number of Marriages in your Parish, Township, or Place in each Year, from the Year 1754 inclusive to the end of the Year 1800 ? The duties and responsibilities thus thrown upon Overseers, &c., for enumerating the Population, and upon Clergymen for the elaborate Abstract, of their Baptism, Marriage and Burial Registers were of an undoubtedly onerous character, and the responsibilities of Justices of the Peace, High Constables, and Clerks of the Peace or Town Clerks, in obtaining through those agencies the required Answers to the Questions submitted to the Overseers and the Clergy were far from light. Section 10 of the Act provided an Allowance for the "Trouble and Expenses of the several persons employed in the Transactions aforesaid." The Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks were awarded the sum of one shilling for each Return made from any Parish, Township or Place; the High Constables or other proper Officers the sum of one shilling and six pence; and the Clerks of the Justices of the Peace throughout Great Britain the sum of one shilling for each Return. The Justices of the Peace in England were required to "make an order upon their respective Treasurers to pay the same out of the Rates." The Justices were further "required to allow the amount of any reasonable compensation for Trouble and Expenses which they shall be satisfied have been bonâ fide
and necessarily incurred in the execution of the Act by such Overseers, Householders, Parish Clerks or Vestry Clerks in England," and were empowered to "order Payment thereof to be made by the Receiver General of the Land Tax for the County, Riding, or other Place in England." The Act makes no provision for the payment of any Allowance to the Clergy, for compiling the elaborate Abstracts from the Parish Registers or for collecting and transmitting them to the Privy Council, although an allowance is provided for the Trouble and Expenses of the Parish Clerks or Vestry Clerks, who it may be presumed assisted the Clergy in making the necessary Abstracts. Having regard to the onerous duties attached to Census taking and the inexperience of those upon whom the duties were imposed in 1801, it is not surprising to find that the Abstract of the results of this First English Census which His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department was required to lay before both Houses of Parliament within Six Weeks of the 15th of May, was not ordered to be printed until the 21st December, 1801. The published Report on the first Census does not specify the Officer appointed by the Secretary of State, by whom the mass of local Returns was "digested and reduced to order"; there appears, however, to be no doubt that this duty was assigned to John Rickman (the friend of Charles Lamb),1
under whose superintendence the Reports on the three following Censuses were prepared. The Report for 1801 indeed includes only the printed actual results of the local Parish Returns. These are preceded by a "Summary of the Enumeration, 1801," giving the total numbers enumerated in England, Wales, and Scotland, with the following few modest "Observations":— As the first of a now long series of English Censuses, the enumeration in 1801 possesses considerable historical interest and deserves attentive consideration, since neither the scope nor the machinery of the inquiry was materially altered at the three succeeding enumerations in 1811, 1821 and 1831. The Act for the Census in Great Britain in 1811 did not receive Royal Assent until the 22nd of March in that year, and the Census was taken on the 27th of May, providing but a short period for the necessary preparation. The Schedule to the Act made the two following alterations in the Questions to which the Overseers in England and the Schoolmasters in Scotland were required to obtain answers. In addition to the number of Inhabited and Uninhabited Houses, they were required to ascertain "How many Houses are now building, and therefore not yet inhabited ?" The other important alteration related to Occupations. At the first Census the inquiry related to the numbers of Persons in each Parish "chiefly employed in Agriculture" and in "Trade, Manufactures, or Handicraft," and to the number "not comprised in either of the preceding Classes." For the purpose of the second Census (1811), the inquiry related to Occupations of Families instead of Persons, and in the "Observations" on the Census Results for 1811, it is admitted that the "Question regarding Occupations may be said to have produced no result in 1801, if indeed an incorrect result be not worse than none, as giving colour to unfounded speculations." This severe condemnation of the first Census inquiry on the important subject of Occupation is but an early example of the difficulty of deciding (1) what are suitable subjects for inquiry by questions submitted generally for answer to persons, a large proportion of whom are imperfectly educated; and (2) how such questions should be worded and explained, having regard to the deficiency of education referred to. With regard to the two Forms of the Occupation Inquiry in 1801 and 1811, it is not now clear whether the original object was to ascertain the numbers of persons actually occupied in the two principal Classes of Industry, or the numbers of persons dependent upon such Industries. Even at the present day, statisticians interested in Occupational statistics are not of one mind as to which of these objects is the more desirable. It is admitted, however, that the intention of the questions was, at any rate in the early Censuses, differently interpreted by large numbers of Overseers, and therefore the results were declared to be practically useless. The Census Act, 1811, also required the Officiating Minister in each Parish to make a Return to his Bishop showing the number of Baptisms, Burials, and Marriages recorded in each of the ten years 1801-10, distinguishing Males from Females, in the case of Baptisms and Burials. The Clergy were also asked to state the average annual number of Baptisms, Burials, and Marriages which in their opinion occur within each Parish without being recorded in the Parish Registers. The inherent difficulties in the way of estimating these numbers detracted seriously from the value of the Parish Abstracts for their intended purpose. The Enumeration and Parish Register Abstracts relating to the Census in 1811 were, in the words of the Act, "digested and reduced into order" by John Rickman, for many years Clerk Assistant at the Table of the House of Commons, and the "Preliminary Observations" in the Report on the Census in 1811, which bears his signature, is a valuable contribution to Census literature, showing an intelligent appreciation of the difficulties inseparable from Census taking, and of the pitfalls to be avoided in the deduction of inferences from the results. The Act for the Census (Great Britain) in 1821 received Royal Assent on the 24th July 1820, and fixed the 28th of the following May as the date of the Census. The machinery provided for taking the Census was the same as that adopted for the two preceding Censuses, and the questions submitted to the overseers and schoolmasters in England and Scotland respectively, and to the Officiating Ministers of Parishes, were practically identical with those proposed in 1811, with the following additions: The Overseer, if of opinion that in making the preceding inquiries (or at any time before returning the schedule), the Ages of the several individuals could be obtained in a satisfactory manner and not inconvenient to the parties, was instructed to state (or cause to be stated) the number of those who are under five years of age, are aged between 5 and 10, 10 and 15, 15 and 20, 20 and 30; of those whose ages fell within each successive decennial period, and of those aged upwards of 100 years, distinguishing Males and Females. This suggestion for a voluntary return was the first attempt to ascertain the ages of the population; and it may here be noted that this information was obtained and published in the Report for about eight-ninths of the unrevised population of England and Wales. The Questions also included the following: "In what manner, and to what place of Residence and Post Office Town, are letters intended for you usually directed ? It is possible that this question was only intended to facilitate subsequent correspondence with such Overseers, but it may also have been suggested with reference to the organization of Postal Administration. The Overseers were, moreover, invited to state in their Abstracts any doubts experienced by them in the classification of the Occupations of Families, and in what manner the doubtful cases had been treated. The "Preliminary Observations" in the Report on the Census in 1821, which also bears the signature of John Rickman, contain observations, of much historical interest, on the difficulties attending the compilation of the Report, arising from the want of uniformity in the determination by the Overseers of the signification that should be attached to a "House" and a "Family"; and, as regards Occupational Statistics, to the terms "Agriculture" and "Trade, Manufacture, or Handicraft." Special difficulties also arose in dealing with Miners, Fishermen, and those employed in Inland Navigation; doubt being expressed, in some of the Overseers' Returns, whether Shepherds and Graziers should be returned as belonging to the Agricultural Class. Provisions for taking the fourth Census (Great Britain) in 1831 were made by the Act 11 Geo. IV., c. xxx., which received Royal Assent on June 23rd, 1830, and fixed the 30th of May, 1831, as the date of the Census. No change was made in the organization for the collection of the required information, but the number of Questions submitted to the Overseers in England, and to the Schoolmasters in Scotland, was very considerably increased, mainly with a view to improve and elaborate the classification of Occupations. The enumeration in detail of the Ages of the Population was not again enacted; but, as regards Males, the number aged upwards of 20 years was required to be separately returned, and to be sub-divided according to their Occupations; and, with a view to effect this object seven new Questions, with explanations, were added to the Schedule. The Males upwards of 20 years "employed in Agriculture" were to include "Graziers, Cow-keepers, Shepherds, and other Farm Servants, Gardeners (not taxable as Male Servants), and Nurserymen." These, moreover, were to be sub-divided into three Classes— (1) Occupiers of Land who constantly employ and pay one or more labourers or farm servants; (2) Occupiers of Land who employ no labourers other than of their own family; and (3) labourers in husbandry and farm servants employed by Occupiers of the first Class. Overseers and Schoolmasters were further required to sub-divide the number of persons employed in "Trade, Manufacture, or Handicraft," classed together at previous Censuses, into (a)
those employed in Manufacture (distinguishing the different kinds of Manufactured or in making Manufacturing Machinery, not including Labourers, Porters, Messengers, &c.; (b)
those employed in "Retail Trade or in Handicraft," including "Masters, Shopmen, Journeymen, or in any capacity requiring skill in the business," excluding Labourers, &c.; (c)
Wholesale Merchants, Bankers, Capitalists, and Professional Persons, including Artists, Architects, Teachers, Clerks, Surveyors, other educated men,
and "generally persons maintaining themselves otherwise than by Manufacture, Trade, or bodily Labour"; (d)
"Miners, Fishermen, Boatmen, Excavators of Canals, Road Makers, Toll Collectors, or Labourers" employed otherwise than in Agriculture, distinguishing those employed in "Quarries, Mines, Coal Pits, Fishery, or any public work in progress"; (e)
"Retired Tradesmen, superannuated Labourers, and Males diseased or disabled in body or mind"; and (f)
"Household Servants, including all Female Servants, all Male Servants (of whatever age) as are taxable as such, also Waiters and Attendants at Inns." Answers, in all, to 16 Questions were to be furnished by the Overseers (or some fit persons appointed by them with the consent of two Justices of the Peace) in a complicated Schedule which was supplied for the purpose, and attested on Oath or Affirmation before the local Justices of the Peace, and was based on the results of personal inquiry of the Occupiers of Houses residing within the Parish or part of a Parish for which they acted. In the light of subsequent experience, it is easy to appreciate the bewildering difficulty which must have been encountered by these Census officials in their endeavour to effect so ambitious a scheme as the classification of Occupations by personal house to house inquiry. In the Preface to the Enumeration Abstract giving the results of the Census in 1831, which again bears the signature of John Rickman, it is explained that the Schedule was, for the assistance of Overseers, accompanied by two Forms (called Formula 1 and 2) on which "account will be readily taken (in hard black-lead pencil or ink) by marks across the several lines, such account to be summed together afterwards for insertion in the Schedule by dividing the marks into Tens." This Preface or Introduction to the Report on the fourth English Census (1831) contains a valuable and interesting comparative summary of the results obtained at the first four Censuses. Mr. Rickman, while candidly admitting the difficulty arising from the want of uniformity in the interpretation of Census Questions, expresses general satisfaction at the results of the more elaborate Occupational Inquiry in 1831 (especially in the Parishes constituting the Metropolis), which results were published in the Report for individual Parishes, the Males aged upwards of 20 years being shown under ten separate Headings. Surprise is expressed that, in the Return of the Occupations of Families, the figures showed a marked decline in the proportion employed both in Agriculture and in Trade, &c., which was balanced by a corresponding increase in the proportion not so returned. Mr. Rickman admits that this result was undoubtedly fallacious, in view of the obvious increase of Trade and Manufacture, and attributes the fallacy to the attempt to classify simultaneously the Occupations of Families and of individual Males aged over 20 years. He refers to it, moreover, as "a memorable example of the danger of altering, even in the slightest degree, any Question intended to produce a comparative Answer; indeed, in this instance the Question was not actually altered, yet its comparative result has been vitiated and, indeed, annulled by asking a collateral question which was not foreseen to have any bearing upon it." It is further suggested by Mr. Rickman that the additional question as to the definite occupation of Males aged over 20 years was submitted to the Census officials in 1831, "with an expectation that hereafter the Question as to Individuals might supersede any future question as to Families," an expectation that has been realized in all Censuses subsequent to that taken in 1831. Between 1831 and 1841 two Acts of Parliament came into operation which materially altered the machinery and organization of the fifth and of all subsequent Censuses. The Poor Law Act of 1834, completely organized Poor Law Administration by the creation of Poor Law Unions, which (with the Poor Law Parishes possessing Local Acts) covered the whole of England and Wales. A few years later the Registration Act, 1836, established the Civil Registration of Births and Deaths in England and Wales. This Act generally adopted the newly created Poor Law Unions as areas for Registration Districts, and imposed the local cost of registration on the Poor Rates levied by Boards of Guardians. It followed naturally, therefore, that the Act authorizing the fifth Census in Great Britain (3 & 4 Vict., c. 99) should adopt the District Superintendent Registrars and the Sub-district Registrars of Births and Deaths as the controlling Census Agents in England and Wales. The second Section of this Act provided that the "Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England, with such other Person or Persons as shall be associated with him for that purpose by Her Majesty, shall be Commissioners for taking account of the Population in Great Britain," and imposed on these Commissioners the duty of making all preliminary Inquiries in order to determine the best manner of putting the Act into execution, and of preparing, printing and issuing all necessary Forms and Instructions. Each Registrar's Sub-district was to be divided into the necessary number of Enumeration Districts for each of which a special Enumerator was to be appointed. This Act fixed Thursday, the First of July, 1841, as the Census day, on which each Enumerator was required to take an account in writing "of the Name, Sex, Age and Occupation of every living Person" who abode within his Enumeration District on the previous night, and "shall also ascertain which of such Persons are Foreigners, and also which were born in the Parish and County in which they shall then be dwelling, and shall also take Account of the Occupied Houses, and of the Houses then Building and therefore uninhabited, and also of all other Uninhabited Houses within his District." The Enumerator was also required to distinguish in his Account the Houses and Population within each Parish or Place separately rated to the Poor, or within each Part of such Parish or Place, or within the limits of any City or Borough returning or contributing to return a Member to Parliament or of any incorporated City or Borough situated within his District. The Act also provided, for the last time, for a Return, from the Officiating Minister of every Parish, of the number of Baptisms, Burials, and Marriages entered in the Parish Registers during the ten years 1831-40, to be transmitted to the Privy Council through the Bishops and Archbishops. This Act was amended by a further Act in the following Session, the date on which the Census was to be taken being changed from Thursday, the 1st July, to Monday, 7th of June. The most important change made by this Amending Act was, however, an instruction to the Census Commissioners to prepare Schedules to be left with the Occupier of each Dwelling House or any part thereof during the week ending on Saturday, 5th June, to be filled up by the Occupier for delivery on application to the duly appointed Enumerator on the Census Day, whose duty it was to complete any defective Schedule, and to correct any Schedule found to be erroneous. From these Occupiers' Schedules the Enumerator was bound to prepare his "Account," containing all the necessary particulars for insertion in his "Enumerator's Schedule." Thus the Occupier's or Householder's Schedule, provided by this Amnding Act, was to contain the required particulars relating to each person who had slept within each house on the night preceding the 7th of June, 1841, and all the details respecting each person were subsequently to be copied from the "Occupier's Schedule" into the Enumerator's Schedule, which has been at succeeding Censuses known as the "Enumeration Book." The main object of this Schedule, to be filled up by each Occupier, was doubtlessly to secure the numbering of the people "in one day"
in order to obviate the chance of inaccuracy from omissions or double entries to which the extension of the inquiry over a greater period gave rise. Another important result of the change initiated in the fifth Census in 1841, was that the responsibility for the accuracy of the facts in the local returns was practically shifted from the local Census Officer (Overseer or Enumerator) to the Occupier or Householder. Under the system adopted at the first four Censuses, the Overseer collected his information by personal inquiry, and summarized, and classified it, returning in his Schedule the numerical results for his Parish or District. Under the new system adopted for the first time in 1841, the Enumerator was only required to examine the Occupiers' Schedules, filling up those found to be defective and correcting obvious errors, and then to copy all the particulars relating to each person into his own Enumeration Schedule or Book. It is obvious that the new system would secure greater uniformity in dealing with the local returns, more especially in such a branch of the Inquiry as the classification of Occupations. As a matter of history, the change of Census Day made by this Amending Act calls for mention. Monday had been fixed for the Census Day at each of the first four enumerations, on the probable assumption that a larger proportion of the population would be at home on Sunday night. In his Preface to the Report on the Census in 1831, John Rickman expressed the opinion that "on future occasions Tuesday ought to be the day of Enumeration, because very many persons resident in London go from home on Saturday and return on Monday, thus becoming liable either to be omitted or twice enumerated." It seems probable that this recommendation was the cause of Monday not being selected as the Census Day in the original Act for the fifth Census. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rickman died in 1840, and although he was probably consulted when the original Act was under consideration, his opinion on this point was apparently overruled in the Amending Act under the advice of the two Census Commissioners, Edmund Phipps and Thomas Vardon,2
who were appointed on the 11th December, 1840, and who signed the Preface to the final Report or "Enumeration Abstract" on 10th August, 1843. It should here be noted that the Registrar-General, Mr. T. H. Lister, who was by the original Act appointed Chief Commissioner for the purpose of the Census in 1841, died in June, 1842, and his successor, Major Graham, who was appointed soon afterwards, did not sign the Preface to the Report issued in 1843, which ably discusses the results of that Census and the advantages resulting from the change in the local system for collection of the desired information. We have considered it desirable, in view of the completion of the first century of English Censuses, to describe in some detail the growth of the system under which the periodical Enumeration of the English population has from time to time been effected. The system first adopted in 1841 has since been maintained without important change. It will, therefore, now only be necessary to refer briefly to such additions to the scope of the inquiry as have been made in more recent Census Acts. The Act for the sixth Census in 1851, provided that "One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State" should have the care of superintending the Census, and that the Registrar-General should issue Forms and Instructions and act generally in Census matters under the direction of such Secretary of State. This Act did not actually extend the scope of the enumeration taken in 1841. It provided, however, in Section 5 that the Enumerator should "take an Account of all such further particulars as by the Forms and Instructions which may be issued under the Act they may be directed to inquire into." No provision was made in this Act for obtaining Abstracts from the Parish Registers of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, as in previous Census Acts, the operation of the Civil Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales during the preceding ten years rendering this unnecessary. The Census Report for 1851 for the first time gave (1) the population of Ecclesiastical Parishes and Districts, in addition to that of Civil or Poor Law Parishes: (2) the Relation to the Head of Family of each Individual returned in each Schedule;3
(3) Condition as to Marriage of the Population; and (4) the number of persons returned as Blind or Deaf and Dumb. Under the impression that the provision in Section 5 (referred to above) authorized such inquiries, statistics were collected as to the amount of accommodation afforded by Churches and by other places for public Religious Worship throughout the country, and of the numbers of persons frequenting them; and also as to existing Educational Establishments and the number of scholars under instruction. It was, however, subsequently questioned whether the Census Act really authorized the compulsory collection of information on these matters, and it thus became necessary to continue these inquiries as purely voluntary. The inquiry as to the amount and nature of local accommodation for Religious Worship was the subject of a separate Report, and is often incorrectly referred to as a Religious Census. The Report on the Census in 1851 bears the signature of George Graham, Registrar-General, and of William Farr (Statistical Superintendent in the General Register Office) and Horace Mann, Assistants to the Registrar-General in the matter of the Census. This Report, and those on the subsequent Censuses in 1861 and 1871, also mainly written by Dr. Farr, established his reputation as an expert authority on Census Statistics, and still hold a high place among his valuable contributions to the development of Vital Statistics. In 1860, separate Acts were passed to authorize a Census in 1861 in England and Wales, in Scotland, and in Ireland; whereas at the six preceding Censuses the same Act had authorized the enumeration throughout Great Britain. The first Census in Ireland was taken in 18214
under an Act passed in 1815, and separate Acts have authorized the subsequent Censuses in that part of the United Kingdom. The cause of the change in 1860 as regards Scotland, was the recent establishment there of the civil registration of Births and Deaths in 1855, under the control of a separate Registrar-General. No change was made in the scope of the Census inquiry in 1861 in England and Wales, and the same may be said of the Act for the English Census in 1871, with the slight exception that the Occupier of every house or tenement was required to state whether any member of his family was imbecile or lunatic, the requirements as to the statement of infirmities having been previously restricted to the blind and the deaf and dumb. The Reports on the two English Censuses in 1861 and 1871, in which Dr. Farr fully discussed Census methods and their statistical results, bore the signatures of George Graham, James Thomas Hammick, and William Farr. The Act for taking a Census in England and Wales in 1881 substituted the Local Government Board for one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State (in practice the Home Secretary) for superintending the taking of the Census, but left the administrative control of the enumeration in the hands of the Registrar-General and the members of his permanent staff. With this exception, the Act for the ninth English Census made no change in the organization or scope of the inquiry. The second Registrar-General for England (Major Graham) and the first Superintendent of Statistics in the General Register Office (Dr. Farr) retired on superannuation prior to the Census in 1881, and the Report on that Census bears the signatures of the third Registrar-General (Sir Brydges P. Henniker) and of Dr. William Ogle, who succeeded Dr. Farr as Statistical Superintendent. This Report was mainly the work of Dr. Ogle, who dealt with the statistics with marked ability and distinctly pointed out the obvious limitations to the scope and accuracy of an inquiry based upon returns made by the often imperfectly educated Occupiers of houses and tenements; the returns being, moreover, collected and revised by between thirty and forty thousand Enumerators necessarily selected without much regard to special fitness for the work, which is but moderately remunerated. These difficulties and limitations were specially insisted upon by Dr. Ogle with regard to the return of the Occupations of the People, although his Report on this branch of the subject, notwithstanding unsatisfactory materials, was both original and valuable. In view of the approaching Census in 1891, and as the result of a Deputation received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board on the 11th of December, 1888, a Committee was appointed by Treasury Minute in February, 1890, to consider the various suggestions that had been made for the improvement of the Census returns and for enlarging the scope of the inquiry. Mr. Leonard Courtney, M.P., acted as Chairman of the Committee, which included two other Members of Parliament, the Registrar-General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Local Government Board. The evidence of many expert witnesses was taken, and the Report of the Committee was dated 23rd of May, 1890. The recommendations included a proposal that an enumeration of the number, sex, and ages of the population should be taken midway between the decennial periods at which a full Census is taken. This recommendation has not, however, yet been acted upon, although, under the provisions of the London (Equalization of Rates) Act, 1894, these facts were enumerated for London in 1896, the expense of which enumeration was defrayed by the London County Council out of the Equalization Fund. Apart from this, the Committee's Report suggested no radical alteration in the organization or scope of the Census Inquiry, and the net result of these recommendations as carried out in 1891 may be summarized as follows:—(1) The addition of an inquiry as to the languages spoken by the inhabitants of Wales and Monmouthshire; (2) the additional requirement for the Occupier to state the number of rooms occupied in all tenements consisting of fewer than five rooms; and (3) an additional statement respecting all persons engaged in industrial occupations, distinguishing masters, those working for a master, and those working on their own account without paid assistants. The first two of these additions were enacted in Section 5 of the Census Act (53 & 54 Vict. c. 61), but the third, although provided for in the Occupier's Schedule, was not mentioned in the Act. Doubts were expressed in the final Report on the Census as to the value and accuracy of the collected information relating to languages spoken in Wales and Monmouthshire, and as to the results of the attempt to differentiate between Employers and Employed; but both inquiries were repeated at the Census in 1901. The provisions of the Census (Great Britain) Act, 1900, so far as they related to England and Wales, were practically identical with those of the Act which authorized the previous Census (1891) in England and Wales. In making this Act apply to Great Britain, the Legislature reverted to the example of the Acts authorizing the six Censuses in Great Britain in 1801-1851; for the four following Censuses 1861-1891 separate Acts had, however, been passed for the three parts of the United Kingdom. Having thus completed a summary of Census legislation during the past Century, we must now proceed to discuss the results of the eleventh Census in 1901, the figures relating to which have already been published in the 53 County Parts, and in the separate Volume of Summary Tables. 1
John Rickman appears in the Imperial Calendar for 1814 as Secretary to the Speaker; in 1815 as Second Clerk Assistant in the House of Commons, and in 1822 as Clerk Assistant. A letter addressed to Thomas Manning by Charles Lamb, dated November 3rd, 1800, contains the following interesting description of John Rickman:— "I have made an acquisition latterly of a pleasant hand, one Rickman, to whom I was introduced by George Dyer, not the most flattering auspices under which one man can be introduced to another. George brings all sorts of people together, setting up a sort of agrarian law, or common property, in matter of society; but for once he has done me a great pleasure, while he was only pursuing a principle, as ignes fatui
may light you home. This Rickman lives in our Buildings, immediately opposite our house; the finest fellow to drop in a'nights, about nine or ten o'clock—cold bread and cheese time—just in the wishing time of the night, when you wish for somebody to come in, without a distinct idea of a probable anybody. Just in the nick, neither too early to be tedious, nor too late to sit a reasonable time. He is a most pleasant hand; a fine rattling fellow, has gone through life laughing at solemn apes—himself hugely literate, oppressively full of information in all stuff of conversation, from matter of fact to Xenophon and Plato—can talk Greek with Person, politics with Thelwall; conjecture with George Dyer, nonsense with be, and anything with anybody; a great farmer, somewhat concerned in an agricultural magazine; reads no poetry but Shakespeare; very intimate with Southey, but never reads his poetry; relishes George Dyer; thoroughly perpetrates into the ridiculous wherever found; understands the first time (a great desideratum in common minds)—you need never twice speak to him; does not want explanations, translations, limitations, as Professor Godwin does when you make an assertion; up to anything; down to anything; whatever sapit hominem.
A perfect man." 2
Edmund Phipps appears in the Imperial Calendar in the years 1840-47 as a member of the Military Board, and Thomas Vardon as Librarian of the House of Commons from 1836 to 1867. 3
Information on this point was, however, only published for 14 Registration Sub-districts. 4
The Report on this Census, dated from Dublin Castle on the 11th of July, 1823, contains an interesting summary of previous attempts to ascertain the population of Ireland, with an explanation of the failure of a previous Act passed in 1812 with a view to an Irish Census. The Act of 1815 was amended by the Census Act of 1822 in respect of certain expenses to be incurred under the said Act.CENSUS OF 1901.
REPORT
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WALTER HUME LONG, M.P.,
1st July, 1904.Census Acts, 1801-1901