View report page

In the event he concluded that the London population in 1700 was 663,200 and,
in 1750, 653,900. These figures suggest that Graunt's estimate for 1661 was too low
since the population of London would seem to have risen by some 263,000 in 40 years
and then declined slightly during the next 50.
Rickman's 1750 estimate however appears inconsistent with other population figures
he produced by a similar form of calculation in 1841 for the Counties of Middlesex and
Surrey. These showed that, whereas in 1700 and 1800, 80 per cent. of the inhabitants of
Middlesex and Surrey were concentrated in the Metropolis, the percentage in 1750
was 97. The discrepancy lies in his Middlesex figures which show a marked fall in 1750,
but there is reason to believe firstly, that the Middlesex population was higher than
estimated because prior to the Marriage Act of 1753 (which forbade the solemnization
of marriage without banns or licence), there were a large number of clandestine
marriages, especially in Middlesex, which would not have been registered ; secondly,
it seems to be generally agreed that the burials did in fact outnumber the baptisms in
the early 18th century and that there was a real fall in the total population of Great
Britain—hence Rickman's calculation, based almost wholly on baptisms of the London
population was too high. This was attributed in the Census report (1851) (p. li et seq)
to the manners and customs of the times—' under the loose, corrupt form of state lower
than polygamy that we here witness, the children are neglected, and perish' (p. liv)
and again when commenting on the great increase in population between 1751 and 1851
'the time, the energies, and the earnings of the people, which had in 1651-1751 been
wasted in intrigues, in riotous assemblies, on gin and in gambling, were devoted in
the next century, to the establishment and support of quiet industrious families,'
(p. lii).
It would seem, therefore, that there was a steady increase in the population of
London during the 17th century—then a stationary period for about 50 years from
1700-1750. The steady increase was resumed until the beginning of the 20th century
when it became difficult to estimate the population owing to the spreading of the
Metropolis beyond the administrative county.
Enough has been said to indicate that, prior to the setting up of the General Register
Office, estimating populations on the numbers of registered births and deaths was somewhat
hazardous. It is likely that Rickman's estimate of the 1700 population of London
was nearer the truth than Graunt's estimate of 1661 but, although Graunt's estimate
was probably too low, the number of deaths he took into account was probably too
low as well. Thus the net result is that Graunt's general line of argument is valid because
both his sets of figures were biassed in the same direction.
Glass also discusses the difficulties of estimating populations and the controversies
that raged in the 18th century. Since 1801 there has been a national census every ten
years, with the exception of 1941. Thus a more exact estimate of the population is
available for the whole of the 19th century.
Migration
So far the question of migration and its effect on the population have not been
mentioned—the lure of the large city, and the effects of the industrial revolution
encouraged, as they still encourage, migration to London and other large towns. It
must not be overlooked however, first that emigration to Australia and the United
States became more common during the 19th century and secondly, there was, at times,
an outward migration from London, for example under the stimulus of plague or even
as Short (1767) tells us because of 'a great Number of new Villas or Country-Seats
within a moderate Day's Journey of London' and 'The late great Improvements of
Roads, formerly unpassable (p. 20).
Some idea of the migration into London may be gathered from the fact that in 1851,
of 1,394,963 persons aged 20 years and upwards, no less than 759,853 were born outside
London—88,542 in Ireland (Census, 1851, p. 31).
170