FOOTNOTES.

[4] This should be read “0 and under 5.”

[6] These estimates have been made upon the basis of an apportionment derived from a consideration of the “English Life Table No. 3;” but I refrain from going into a detailed account of the process, for fear of rendering this paper more prolix and uninteresting than its character necessitates.

[8a] Net gain of incoming Irish, foreigners, &c., in excess of those departing. Net loss of English-born Emigrants, in excess of English returning home.

[8b] This is framed on the assumption that the migrations in each year were exactly alike in number.

[11a] It will be noticed that some of the ratios of inaccuracy attributed to the census figures of 1851 are lower than those for later censuses. These exceptions to the rule of decreasing inaccuracy might be removed without any very violent disturbance of the estimates shewn in Table IV, but it is thought scarcely requisite to do so.

[11b] The percentage would be 20.0 (more or less), except at high ages, for each year of error.

[14] Net Gain.

[15] A further slight modification in the estimates of unregistered male births will be noticed. It affects the estimated emigration in 1861–70 to the extent of about 10,000 persons,—making it 156,248 instead of 165,800.

[16] The following specimen calculation, shewing the ingredients which constitute the computed deaths in 1861–1870 amongst females born in 1851–1855, in 1816–1820, and in 1811–1815 respectively, will illustrate what I mean:—

Year of Death.

Born1851–55.

Born1816–20.

Born1811–15.

Age
5–10.

Age
10–15.

Age
15–20.

Totals.

Age
35–45.

Age
45–55.

Totals.

Age
45–55.

Age
55–65.

Totals.

1861

6730

518

. . .

7248

6234

645

6879

6514

. . .

6514

1862

5259

1603

. . .

6862

4999

1994

6993

6669

. . .

6669

1863

4630

2915

. . .

7575

3688

3392

7080

6813

. . .

6813

1864

2452

3989

. . .

6441

2350

5366

7716

7686

. . .

7686

1865

678

4626

. . .

5304

785

6993

7778

7873

. . .

7873

1866

. . .

4499

620

5119

. . .

8048

8048

7413

844

8257

1867

. . .

2949

1786

4735

. . .

7547

7547

5443

2410

7853

1868

. . .

2274

3045

5319

. . .

7359

7359

3813

3983

7796

1860

. . .

1437

4351

5788

. . .

7859

7859

2466

5985

8451

1870

. . .

510

6192

6702

. . .

8098

8098

873

8264

9137

19749

25350

15994

61093

18056

57301

75357

55563

21486

77049

[19a] The first line of Table VIII shews the effect of the removal of families from the first division to the semi-suburban districts in divisions II and III. Such families take with them a good many children; hence the loss to the metropolitan division, and the gain to the two divisions mentioned of both boys and girls.

[19b] The following statement may make this fact clearer:—

Division. Births recorded
1841–45.
Population in 1871
born 1841–45.
Proportion
as 100 to—
I. London 316037 289951 91.7
V. South-western 266860 126219 47.3
VIII. North-western 392151 279606 71.3

The survivors, according to the English Life Table No. 3, should be about 62.2 per cent. The low rate of mortality in the South-western counties renders it certain that, but for migrations, the ratio of enumerated population to the corresponding births would be higher than 62.2 in that division; in the other divisions it would be lower.

[20] I am of opinion that the gain in this column, so far as regards London death-rates, is due to the departure of many women when in bad health, some of whom die in the country. But for the effect of such departures, the recorded deaths and the apparent net gain by migrations would reach higher numbers.

[22] The procedure for instance in 1881 might be:—Take the English population at each age in 1871 as already corrected, and introduce the numbers of births returned in 1876–80 and 1871–75 as the first two terms of the series, adding a reasonable allowance for non-registration. Deduct the deaths in 1871–80, duly apportioned under periods of birth. The gross number of either sex enumerated in 1881 being known, the net loss or gain by migrations can then be ascertained. Apportion this in somewhat similar proportions to those observed in 1851–60. The final results will exhibit approximately the distribution of population by ages in 1881.

[23a] It will be noticed that I have paid no regard to the interval of time between the census day and the January preceding, treating the exact decennium as being a near enough equivalent of the interval between census and census.

[23b] These numbers represent the births in the periods mentioned, plus an allowance for omissions, viz. 1¾ per cent. on births in 1866–70, and 2, 2¼, and 3½ per cent. on births in the earlier periods respectively.

[23c] The correction adopted in the case of female births is rather larger than in that of male births. These figures are those returned, plus 2 per cent. on the births in 1866–70, and 2¼, 2¾, and 4 per cent. respectively on the births in the earlier periods.

[24a] Births, plus allowance for those unregistered, say 2 per cent. on births in 1866–70, and 2¾, 3¼, and 4 per cent. respectively on births in the earlier periods.

[24b] The few deaths “age not stated” are disregarded.

[25a] Births, plus allowance for those unregistered, say 1½ per cent. on births in 1866–70, and 2¼, 2.65 and 3.5 per cent. respectively on births in the earlier periods.

[25b] The few deaths “are not stated” are disregarded.

[25c] These figures are, I think, improbable; I suppose the apportionment of deaths may be chiefly in fault.