View report page

1
REPORT.
POPULATION.
At the time of writing, the only report dealing with the census of last year which had
been published was the " Preliminary" issued in June, 1911. Although the figures given in that
report arc described as " subject to revision," it is not anticipated that the few data concerning
the Borough which are contained in the report will, in their final form, differ materially from
those already published.
The data at the moment available are the numbers of "families, or separate occupiers"
(33,962) and of inhabitants (142,576 persons). The number of "families" showed a slight
increase in comparison with the (final) figure for 1901 (33,661), while the total population
showed a reduction of 1,400 persons below the 1901 total (143,976), equivalent to a shrinkage of
(approximately) 1 per cent., as against an increase of a little more than 5 per cent, in the
ten years 1891-1901. The difference of 1,400 persons represents only a fraction of the total
population lost by the Borough during the ten years.
The growth of a population between two successive census-takings represents the algebraic
sum of three factors, viz., the population at the earlier census, the natural increase of the population,
and the balance of migration during the intervening period. Figures relating to the two
first factors are available in the census reports and in the registers of births and deaths. Migration
statistics are wanting, except as regards the country as a whole, and such statistics as are
available cannot be described as altogether satisfactory. Moreover, while the statistics relating
to the natural increment (the difference between the numbers of births and deaths) may be taken
as accurate, within a small percentage, for the country as a whole, they are, or have been, far
from accurate in the case of unit areas, such as is the Borough of Paddington. A certain
proportion of births and deaths, strictly belonging to the Borough, occur beyond its boundaries,
and have not hitherto been included in the local statistics, the deficiency having been during the
past ten years greater in the case of the births than in that of the deaths. It follows, therefore,
that any estimate of the natural increment which is based on the births registered within the
Borough and the imperfectly corrected numbers of deaths must yield an under-estimate. Such
under-estimate, however, furnishes a striking evidence of the loss of population in the Borough
between 1901 and 1911.
According to the Departmental records, the excess of births (as registered within the
Borough) during the ten years which elapsed between April, 1901, and April, 1911, over the
deaths (corrected for deaths in the Borough of non-residents and of residents of the Borough
occurring in other parts of London only) amounted to 11,959 persons. If that figure be added
to the census population of 1901 (143,976), an estimated census (1911) population of 155,935
persons is obtained, whereas the enumerated total was 142,576, showing a loss of at least 13,359
persons, equivalent to 9 3 per cent, of the estimate. There is reason to think that the estimate
of the natural increment given above is approximately 20 per cent, too low, such surmise being
based on the results of the more complete corrections of the numbers of births and deaths
belonging to the Borough introduced last year by the Registrar-General. If that correction be
accepted, the estimated population at the date of the last census should have been 158,327
persons, showing a loss of 15,751 persons (11'4 per cent.). Even that amended estimate is
probably too low. The emigration from the Borough has not been uniform throughout the ten
years, and there was some immigration in the earlier part of the period. It is probable that the
actual loss in population approaches 16,500 persons.
b