Such being the state of the facts, I abandoned all thought of deducing from the total numbers enumerated in 1871 any reliable estimates of the numbers at particular ages, unless indeed some other mode of treatment of the figures could be found leading to more regular results.

On comparing with the population enumerated in 1851 the numbers, ten years older, found to be living in 1861, I obtained other sets of ratios, which are shown in Table II.

The following is a comparison between the proportions for England and Wales, shewn in Table II, and the numbers out of 100 living in 1851 who would have survived in 1861 according to the English Life Table No. 3.

Ages
in
1851.

Proportion ofsurvivors out of 100 living in 1851.

By the Census.

By the LifeTable.

Males.

Females.

Males.

Females.

0–5 [4]

90.1

89.2

86.4

86.7

5–10

91.2

93.5

94.2

94.0

10–15

89.2

102.1

93.7

93.4

15–20

84.1

94.4

92.0

91.6

20–25

83.2

83.2

90.9

90.4

25–30

84.4

82.3

89.9

89.6

30–35

89.2

88.6

88.6

88.6

35–40

85.1

85.9

86.8

87.4

40–45

82.3

83.8

84.3

85.9

45–50

76.1

77.6

80.5

83.2

50–55

76.7

80.2

75.3

78.2

55–60

68.9

74.1

67.7

70.7

60–65

56.5

60.2

56.9

60.3

65–70

47.3

50.5

43.5

47.2

The emigration of females of English birth has by no means been on an insignificant scale, at any time since 1851; but owing to the immigration of large numbers of women from Ireland, Scotland, and foreign parts, the net loss has been only moderate. We should therefore be justified in looking for a certain correspondence between the proportions of females who might be expected to survive, according to the Life Table, and those proportional figures which represent a comparison of the census figures of 1861 with those of 1851. In point of fact, we discover that, at ages 10–20, the proportions who should survive the next ten years, according to the Life Table, are far exceeded by those who apparently do survive; and this state of things in the next ten years is reversed. So that the figures suggest a faulty return of the ages of the female population, exaggerating the numbers aged 20–30, and perhaps depressing those aged 30–40.

Again, we have reason to believe that some of the children under five years old are returned as being fully of that age, whilst next to none who have attained five years of age would be returned as being younger. This would account for the dissimilarity of the ratios of survivors at the earliest period of life.

By assuming, as experimental suppositions, that the proportionate errors in the censuses of 1851 and 1861 at each age were equal, and that female emigration and immigration neutralised each other, I obtained a set of corrections of the census enumerations of females which indicated that there was a tendency in the case of young persons under twenty to exaggerate their ages, but that women aged 25–30, and at each successive quinquennial period of life, at least up to 55–60, had a tendency to understate their ages. There was likewise a certain disposition to return ages in round numbers of years, though this was far less remarkable than in the Irish census of 1851, from which the following figures are taken.

Age returned. Males. Females.
35 and under 40 150,471 165,966
40 ,, 45 187,410 217,986
45 ,, 50 109,618 117,345
50 ,, 55 156,337 176,782
55 ,, 60 73,511 79,111
60 ,, 65 100,963 130,740

The understatement, at the ages mentioned, appeared to have been no greater in this country than would have resulted from every woman, aged 25–60, calling herself one year younger than her true age.

It will be obvious how great the utility of censuses taken at intervals of five years would be, in enabling us to measure more accurately the results of these tendencies to mis-state ages, and particularly the effect of ages being returned in round numbers.