On the inaccuracies which probably exist in the census returns of ages

by Thomas A. Welton

On applying to the census figures of 1861 and 1871 for each of the eleven divisions, the proportional corrections shewn in Statements A and B, certain results were obtained, of which the following is an example:—

Age in 1871.	Division VIII(North-Western). Female Population in		Ratio of Population in 1871 to that in 1861, (per cent.)	National ratio of survivors (including allowance for Emigrants.)	Difference.
	1861.	1871.
10–15	205692	179947	87.5	87.5	.. .
15–20	167248	171382	102.5	94.7	+7.8
20–25	151238	155554	102.9	93.7	+9.2
25–30	149921	145825	97.3	91.9	+5.4
30–35	144649	131174	90.7	91.0	-.3

The final result of the above calculation is a column of differences which, if the rate of mortality in Lancashire and Cheshire exactly equalled that of the nation, would represent the gain or loss at each age on a balance of migrations. The whole of the differences thus ascertained for the eleven divisions respectively are shewn in Table VIII.

The last column in that table, shewing the differences for England and Wales, of course represents simply the effect of migrations. I think that the differences in the other columns, at ages up to 35, are almost wholly consequent upon migrations. [19a] The mortality in London and in Lancashire being greater than the average, the figures at those ages are perhaps less striking (because partially neutralised by such excessive mortality) than if the results of migrations stood out by themselves. It seems clear, in fact, that whilst the South-western counties lose more than 26.8 per cent. of their young men in the ten years beginning with age 10 to 15 and ending with age 20 to 25, London gains rather more than 14.5 per cent. at the same time of life.

The ratios last mentioned, and many others which are shewn in Table VIII, are of great importance, as indicating the movements of large numbers of persons, [19b] and therefore, by way of rendering our impressions about their meaning more definite, I have taken the pains to apportion the deaths recorded in Divisions I, V, and VIII at certain ages, with the following results:—

Born in.	1861.	1871.	Apportioned Deaths, 1861–70.	Loss or gain by migrations.	Per cent. on Population in 1861.				The per centages inTable VIII being consequently made up thus—
					Deaths		Loss or Gain by Migrations.		Loss or gain compared with average death loss. [20]	Loss or gain by migrations.	Total.
Male Population(corrected.)
Div. I. London.
1851–55	147228	141937	7849	+2558		5.3		+1.7	-.1	+1.7	+1.6
1846–50	130615	141809	8042	+19236		6.1		+14.7	-.2	+14.7	+14.5
1841–45	118767	134948	11004	+27185		9.3		+22.9	-1.3	+22.9	+21.6
1836–40	120587	118776	12405	+10594		10.3		+8.8	-1.4	+8.8	+7.4
Div. V. So.-west.
1851–55	106614	91014	4601	-10999		4.3		-10.3	+.9	-10.3	-9.4
1846–50	100897	67943	4838	-28116		4.8		-27.9	+1.1	-27.9	-26.8
1841–45	96505	57468	5637	-27400		6.2		-30.3	+1.8	-30.3	-28.5
1836–40	69223	50745	5430	-13048		7.8		-18.9	+1.1	-18.9	-17.8
Div. VIII. Lanc. and Chesh.
1851–55	166782	160706	10641	+4565		6.4		+2.7	-1.2	+2.7	+1.6
1846–50	150583	145788	10945	+6150		7.3		+4.1	-1.4	+4.1	+2.7
1841–45	138424	133781	13247	+8604		9.6		+6.2	-1.6	+6.2	+4.6
1836–40	132498	119061	13348	-89		10.1		-.1	-1.2	-.1	-1.2
FemalePopulation (corrected.)
Div. I. London.
1851–55	149084	164132	7810	+22858		5.2		+15.3	+.1	+15.3	+15.4
1846–50	133936	165675	7908	+39647		5.9		+29.6	+.4	+29.6	+30.0
1841–45	139844	155003	10469	+25628		7.5		+18.3	+.6	+18.3	+18.9
1836–40	143074	136729	11944	+5599		8.3		+3.9	+7	+3.9	+4.6
Div. V. So.-west.
1851–55	106074	90500	4892	-10682		4.6		-10.1	+.7	-10.1	-9.4
1846–50	97784	77303	5375	-15106		5.5		-15.4	+.8	-15.4	-14.6
1841–45	91581	68751	6249	-16581		6.8		-18.1	+1.3	-18.1	-16.8
1836–40	77717	61231	5950	-10536		7.7		-13.5	+1.3	-13.5	-12.2
Div. VIII. Lanc. and Chesh.
1851–55	167248	171382	10115	+14249		6.0		+8.5	-.7	+8.5	+7.8
1846–50	151238	155554	11094	+15410		7.3		+10.2	-1.0	+10.2	+9.2
1841–45	149921	145825	14024	+9928		9.3		+6.6	-1.2	+6.6	+5.4
1836–40	144649	131174	14900	+1425		10.3		+1.0	-1.3	+1.0	-.3

Similar tables might be constructed for every age, and not only for each registration division, but for every registration district in the kingdom.

It will be observed that the apparent gain of the metropolitan division through migrations is less striking than might have been expected, although it is very large. But what is really shewn is the balance resulting, after deducting from the gain of strangers, the loss arising from the removal of families over the border of the division into extra metropolitan Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, or even into the nearer parts of Essex and Hertfordshire. If the London boundary were largely extended, it would be found that the gain by immigration from a distance is larger, and the loss by emigration is less, than now appears; and, in short, the statements whether of urban gain or of rural loss at ages up to 35 would be more striking than those exhibited in Table VIII.

After 35, both sexes in London and in the north-western counties exhibit a steady loss at each age, no doubt attributable in the main to the heavy mortality experienced in those divisions. The rural divisions numbered V and XI shew a loss until past the age of 50, due to emigration. These and several other agricultural divisions (those numbered II, III, and IV), shew considerable gains at the higher ages, partly due to their mortality being low, and partly resulting from other causes.

It is evident that those who emigrate beyond sea (from Division V for example) are older persons than those who leave their native division to seek employment at a short distance, as do the majority of those who migrate from the eastern counties (Division IV). Two-thirds of these latter are perhaps between the ages of 14 and 20 years when they depart, and very few of them can be more than 25 years old.