Part 2

Age at the end Proportion of survivors The like of the ten (including emigrants) out of 100 proportion, years. Females who were living 10 years according to earlier. the English Life Table, No. 3. According to According to corrected corrected figures, 1851 figures, 1861 and 1861. and 1871. 10–15 87.4 87.5 86.7 15–20 94.2 94.7 94.0 20–25 93.2 93.7 93.4 25–30 91.4 91.9 91.6 30–35 90.5 91.0 90.4 35–40 90.0 90.1 89.6 40–45 89.0 89.1 88.6 45–50 88.3 88.2 87.4 50–55 86.8 86.8 85.9 55–60 84.7 84.6 83.2 60–65 80.2 79.5 78.2 65–70 72.7 72.4 70.7 70–75 61.6 61.3 60.3 75–80 47.1 46.9 47.2

On examining the ratios thus obtained, it will be seen that they harmonise well with the probability shewn by the Life Table. Each set of ratios is symmetrically graduated, whilst the proportions obtained by the use of the uncorrected Census Tables were, as has already been observed, by turns exaggerated and depressed.

Having thus arrived at a sufficiently near approximation to the truth in the case of females, it remains for us to endeavour to do the same in that of males. The effect of emigration must be first computed, which may be done thus:—

Age at end 1851–60. 1861–70. of the year of migration. Immigrants English Immigrants English from Emigrants. from Emigrants. Ireland, Ireland, &c. &c. 0–5 2000 3500 1500 2200 5–10 2000 3500 1500 2200 10–15 3000 3000 2200 2000 15–20 6000 6500 4200 4000 20–25 2500 9000 1750 6000 25–30 1000 8000 750 5000 30–35 500 5000 400 3400 35–40 500 3000 350 2100 40–45 400 1850 260 1200 45–50 300 1300 200 800 50–55 200 1000 150 600 55–60 100 700 100 440 Totals 18500 46350 13360 29940

The above figures are based on an augmented estimate of unregistered male births, to correspond with the increased estimate of unregistered female births used in compiling Table IV.

The total loss or gain of male inhabitants at each age, resulting from the above migrations, might possibly have been as under, assuming the course of events to have been quite unvarying year by year:—

Age at Net Loss. close of decennium. 1851–60. 1861–70. 0–5 4500 2100 5–10 12000 5600 10–15 10500 4300 15–20 4500 200 {14} 20–25 22000 11350 25–30 54500 33600 30–35 61500 38750 35–40 44000 28750 40–45 25850 17570 45–50 15250 10000 50–55 10300 6230 55–60 7800 4470 60–65 4600 2600 65–70 1200 680 Totals 278500 165800

As, however, those who departed in the earlier years of the decennium 1861–70 for the United States, may, to a great extent, have returned home, as well as many of those who had previously left the country, it seems natural to suppose that the emigrants of 1861–70 were, on the whole, much younger than the above Table would shew.

The result of a careful study of the various figures has been to convince me that the ages of male children, as well as those of female children, are overstated. At the age 15 and under 20 males do not appear to exaggerate their ages so often as females do. From 25 to 70 there seems to be a general but slight tendency to understate age, to the extent, on an average, of a quarter or at most nearly half a year. After 70, the same tendency to exaggerate age, which was noticed in the case of females, seems to prevail.

In Tables VI and VII are contained the same approximate facts respecting males, as are furnished by Tables IV and V for our female population. The figures of all these statements have been arrived at empirically, but so as to involve the most moderate and regular corrections which will meet the difficulties of the case.

The resulting proportions of supposed accurate and inaccurate returns at each age may be thus shewn:—

STATEMENT B.

Shewing the proportions (per cent.) of male population returned at each age, who were really older or younger than represented.

Returned 1851. 1861. 1871. as aged Really Age Really Really Age Really Really Age Really older. correct. y’nger. older. correct y’nger. older. correct. y’nger. 0–5 . . . 1000 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . 5–10 . . . 97.0 3.0 . . . 97.1 2.9 . . . 97.3 2.7 10–15 . . . 98.8 1.2 . . . 98.3 1.7 . . . 98.3 1.7 15–20 . . . 99.1 .9 . . . 98.3 1.7 . . . 98.2 1.8 20–25 1.0 98.7 .3 .9 98.4 .7 .5 98.6 .9 25–30 1.6 98.4 . . . 1.0 99.0 . . . .6 99.4 . . . 30–35 .7 99.3 . . . .1 99.9 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . 35–40 .2 99.8 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . 40–45 3.5 96.5 . . . 1.6 97.8 .6 1.0 98.3 .7 45–50 5.0 95.0 . . . 1.9 98.1 . . . 1.2 98.8 . . . 50–55 9.0 91.0 . . . 4.2 95.8 . . . 3.1 96.9 . . . 55–60 4.7 95.3 . . . 1.2 98.8 . . . .6 99.4 . . . 60–65 7.2 92.8 . . . 4.9 95.1 . . . 4.1 95.9 . . . 65–70 . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . 70–75 . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 . . . 75–80 . . . 97.3 2.7 . . . 97.9 2.1 . . . 98.8 1.2 80–85 . . . 88.9 11.1 . . . 91.2 8.8 . . . 94.8 5.2 85–90 . . . 87.3 12.7 . . . 89.4 10.6 . . . 94.9 5.1 90–95 . . . 86.3 13.7 . . . 88.6 11.4 . . . 93.7 6.3 95–100 . . . 57.0 43.0 . . . 59.9 40.1 . . . 74.4 25.6 100 & up. . . . 25.6 74.4 . . . 36.4 63.6 . . . 41.5 58.5

The emigration {15} at several ages shewn in Table VI, though graduated with much regularity, is very different in amount at particular ages from that which has been computed on page 14 (_ante_), and each person must form his own opinion as to which set of figures is likely to be nearest the truth.

Applying the final test previously used, by calculating the ratios of survivors indicated by the corrected figures, we have:—

Age at the Proportion of survivors The like end of the ten (including proportion years. emigrants) out of 100 males who according to were the living ten years earlier. English Life Table No. 3. According to According to corrected corrected figures, figures, 1851 and 1861. 1861 and 1871. 10–15 87.1 87.0 86.4 15–20 94.3 94.8 94.2 20–25 93.7 94.1 93.7 25–30 92.0 92.0 92.0 30–35 91.4 91.1 90.9 35–40 90.6 89.8 89.9 40–45 89.3 88.3 88.6 45–50 87.4 86.4 86.8 50–55 84.9 84.3 84.3 55–60 81.0 80.2 80.5 60–65 76.6 75.1 75.3 65–70 68.8 66.5 67.7 70–75 57.7 56.3 56.9 75–80 42.9 40.8 43.5

These ratios, like those obtained from the corrected female population, shew a great deal of regularity, and resemble those derived from the English Life Table very closely, whilst they deviate widely from those based upon the uncorrected census figures.

It may perhaps be supposed that such resemblance is artificial, and is really the result of the adoption of the Life Table as a guide in the apportionment of the recorded deaths under the years of birth. I am, however, sure that such a use of the Life Table cannot have controlled the result to any very important extent. Any apportionment of deaths occurring amongst a gradually increasing population like that of England, effected on a consistent and reasonable plan, would necessarily come within a very few thousands of the figures shewn in Tables IV and VI, at least for that period of life extending over fifty years or thereabouts, which lies between childhood and old age. {16}

There is this further remark to be made, viz., that the series of ratios, though they resemble those derived from the Life Table, deviate from them at particular ages to a very appreciable extent thus:—

MALES—Loss by death. FEMALES—Loss by death. Age at end Life Table. Corrected Corrected Life Table. Corrected Corrected of Population, Population, Population, Population, decennium. 1851/60. 1861/70. 1851/60. 1861/70. 25–30 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.4 8.6 8.1 30–35 9.1 8.6 8.9 9.6 9.5 9.0 35–40 10.1 9.4 10.2 10.4 10.0 9.9 40–45 11.4 10.7 11.7 11.4 11.0 10.9 45–50 13.2 12.6 13.6 12.6 11.7 11.8 50–55 15.7 15.1 15.7 14.1 13.2 13.2 55–60 19.5 19.0 19.8 16.8 15.3 15.4 60–65 24.7 23.4 24.9 21.8 19.8 20.5

The actual mortality seems in general to be lower than that shewn in the Life Table, sometimes to the extent of five or six or even nine per cent. If, therefore, we were to compute the numbers of deaths on the basis of the Life Table, the result would be found to exceed the recorded deaths by many thousands. I naturally prefer to accept the teachings of the recorded facts, although they may not have been transposed quite correctly, rather than rely upon the Life Table,—which I feel sure has been graduated by some mathematical process at least as empirical as any estimate of mine. At the same time, I think I am bound to point out that so near a correspondence between the general character of my results and that of those obtained by mathematical graduation is a most important fact, tending to convince us more strongly than ever that great regularity would be found to exist in the age-distribution of deaths occurring amongst a large population, and during a moderately long period of time, if only a truthful record of ages could be secured.

APPLICATION OF THE SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS.

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 Division VIII Ratio of National Difference. 1871. (North-Western). Population in ratio of Female Population in 1871 survivors to that in (including 1861, allowance for (per cent.) Emigrants.) 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 Loss or Per cent. on The per centages in Table Deaths, gain by Population VIII being consequently 1861–70. migrations. in 1861. made up thus— Deaths Loss or Loss or Loss or Total. Gain by gain gain by Migrations. compared migrations. with average death loss. {20} 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 Female Population (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.