View report page

in the other two periods. The correlation between the two indices of density, which
was very large in the two earlier triennia, fell significantly in 1950-52 but was itself
still significant. The decline in the size of the correlation coefficients with the percentage
living more than two to a room is directly attributable to conditions arising from the
second world war. The destruction of so many houses led to an acute shortage and the
opportunity was taken in the rebuilding programme to re-house Londoners outside
the county boundaries.

Summary
Between 1901 and 1931 the population of the County of London was approximately
stationary. Between 1931 and 1951 it fell by over a million, and in seven of the 28
boroughs the population in 1951 was only about half that in 1931. The result of these
changes was a great reduction in the proportion of persons living in overcrowded
conditions. From 1901 to 1931 the proportion of the population living more than two
persons to a room was between 1 in 6 and 1 in 8; by 1951 it had fallen to 1 in 40.
From 1901 to 1931 about 3 per cent, of the population of London was foreign-born;
in 1951 the figure was 5 per cent, for the County, and over 10 per cent, in four boroughs:
Hampstead (16 per cent.), Kensington (12 per cent.), Paddington (10 per cent.), and
St. Marylebone (12 per cent.).
The downward trend of the death rate during the 20th century has been remarkably
similar in the London boroughs, so that the boroughs with the highest and lowest
rates in 1911-13 were in the same relative position in 1950-52. The fall has, however,
been larger in the boroughs where the rate previously was highest so that the actual
and relative range of the death rates between London boroughs in 1950-52 was somewhat
smaller than in 1911-13. The general death rate (standardized) is still significantly
correlated with the indices of socio-economic status (persons per room, and percentage
in Social Classes IV and V).
The birth rate followed a trend similar to that of the death rate, and, generally, the
relative level of the birth rate of a borough, high or low, has remained the same throughout
the period. With the exception of the percentage of the population living more
than two to a room, the correlations between the birth rate and the socio-economic
indices have changed very little.
The very large fall in infant mortality in the London boroughs has been relatively
greater in those boroughs where the initial level was highest. In 1911-13 and 1920-22,
infant mortality was significantly correlated with the percentage of occupied males
in Social Classes IV and V and with the two measures of overcrowding. In 1930-32
the correlations between infant mortality and overcrowding were reduced but still
significant, while the percentage of occupied males in Social Classes IV and V was not
significantly correlated with infant mortality. In 1950-52 the correlations between
infant mortality and the three indices were not significant. The lack of correlation in
1950-52 was partly due to the increasing contribution made by neonatal mortality,
and partly to the fact that the relationship is no longer demonstrable in the smaller
boroughs although it still exists in the largest boroughs. If the neonatal component is
excluded, the correlation of infant mortality for the first year of life is significant in
177