The 1801 Census
In the first of a new series Jad Adams explores the birth of the British census at the dawn of the 19th century and what the first returns revealed about British society
Don’t miss the start of a new series from Jad Adams
At the end of the 18th century no one knew the total population of the British Isles, but there were very pressing reasons to find out. At the time the country was facing significant challenges. War with France had already consumed the 1790s, and would last until the Treaty of Amiens in 1802 gave a temporary respite. This major series of wars fought over vast distances required hundreds of thousands of men on
‘The first income tax was announced in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic Wars’
sea and land and a huge industrial support network providing arms, uniforms, food and equipment. The supply was hampered by the fact that decision-makers did not know what the country’s agricultural or industrial capacity was, or could be.
Wars were expensive; the first income tax was announced in 1798 to pay for the Napoleonic Wars. In order to recover the tax, it was necessary to know how many people there were, and how they were employed.
With a bad harvest in 1800, and many agricultural workers not productive because they were in militias, it was essential to know how much grain was available for food. Amid this practical debate there were more general fears that reinforced the need for a census. Many thinkers believed that the population was in catastrophic decline. Tory defenders of the
countryside fought their corner to say that agriculture had been undermined by the rise of industry with Whig aristocrats investing in factories and attracting labour from the land. Radicals said the population had declined because the nation was so ill-fed.
Radical Theory
One of those interested in the big questions of the day was John Rickman, a journalist whose essay Thoughts on the Utility and Facility of Ascertaining the Population of England came out in 1796.
Rickman was a radical who wanted to know the mortality and life expectancy of what were beginning to be called the working classes. He hoped to improve the regulation of friendly societies which supported working people when they were in need; they were deficient because they did not have accurate actuarial life-tables by which to assess contributions.
However, Rickman knew that his interest over this matter would not be a winning argument with an aristocratic government, and put forward concerns to establish “the power and resources of the nation”. His major technical contribution was to suggest the census should count people at home, not expecting them to go to some other place for enumeration, or to count them at work. Rickman estimated that the census would take two years and cost £740.
Rickman was introduced to Charles Abbot MP (later Lord Colchester). He saw the value of arguments for a census, and felt Rickman’s elegant procedure was the best to follow. Abbot had chaired the select committee on finance and had backed Prime Minister William Pitt’s taxation policies. When he asked to see Pitt to argue for a census, he found he was pushing at an open door.
Invasion Of Privacy
Not everyone agreed. Some argued that the census was an invasion of privacy, others that it would reveal too much to enemies of the nation. Nevertheless, the Population Bill received Royal Assent in December 1800.
John Rickman was appointed to manage the venture; he and a small number of clerks started work in the Cockpit by St James’s Park in Westminster. The forms were to be issued and completed on 10 March 1801. Two were sent out – to be completed by civil authorities and the clergy.
They went to clerks of the peace or town clerks in every parish in England and Wales who passed them to the overseers of the poor or “some substantial householder” in default of people holding that office; and to vicars who had to answer the questions about births, marriages and deaths. They were paid 1s or
1s 6d for filling in the forms.
However, in Scotland ministers of the cloth felt that it was not part of their duties to count their parishioners. There the task was assigned to schoolmasters, who were sent the forms by the sheriffs. Ireland was not in the UK
when the plans were drawn up, so was excluded from the census.
Projections From Registers
Rickman thought that the easiest way to ascertain population growth was to collate existing parish records. Births and deaths were assessed from questions to parish priests about baptisms and burials over the previous two decades and nine sample years going back to 1700. Anticipated future births could be assessed from the trend and from a question about marriages in a parish between 1754 and 1800. This would allow a projection of the likely population.
The forms filled in by the overseers of the poor asked how many occupied houses there were; how many families lived in them; and the number of unoccupied
houses. A return had to be made of how many people, including children, lived in the parish, and their sex.
Enumerators wanted to know how many people were involved in trade, manufacture or handicraft, how many in agriculture and how many in neither of these. They were not asked how many were in the Army, militias or Navy, because the Government already had those figures.
The overseers, priests and schoolmasters often didn’t bother to fill in the forms. Some were not competent to do so. The result was that many places in England and Wales lacked returns. On the mainland of Scotland, however, there was almost a complete return, owing to the efficiency of the parish schoolmasters. The census found that the population was 10.9 million, in 1.8 million houses (an average of six per house). There were more women than men in the country (almost half a million men serving abroad), but not by a large amount. The exact figures were 8,331,434 people in England; 1,559,068 in Scotland; 541,546 in Wales; and 469,188 serving abroad.
Two million people worked in agriculture; another two million worked in making or selling things, which ranged from handicrafts to factory work.
There were more baptisms than burials, and an increasing number of marriages in the second half of the 18th century: the population was increasing, not declining.
The enumerator was expected to give totals, not individualised data. In order to get to these they used lists that noted the head of household and gave figures in columns opposite their name to say how many were in the family and the work they did. In most cases these notes have been lost.
The census was done, and its officers moved on to other work. There was no plan to repeat the exercise; a second census would require a new Population Act.