Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Finchley]
This page requires JavaScript
7
Population.
The population of the Finchley District in 1881 was
11,045; in 1891 it had grown to 16,419. The increase
of population between 1881 and 1891 amounted, therefore, to
5,374. Now if this rate of increase is assumed to have been
maintained up to the middle of 1894 one arrives, by a
logarithmetrical calculation, at an estimated population of 18,690.
By a careful consideration of all the facts, however, I am led
to believe that this would be an over estimation, since the
increase which forms the basis of such a calculation may not
have been maintained—seeing that it took place during a
period when there was a far larger amount of building and
consequent immigration into the District than there has been
during the past 3 years. I find that a careful perusal of the
rate-books bears out my surmise, for the number of occupied
houses in the District at the close of the year was 3,075 as
against 3,191 in the previous year. Of the 3,075 inhabited houses
1,170 were in the sub-district of East Finchley, 807 in North
Finchley, 660 in Church End, and 438 in Whetstone. Now
my predecessor, Dr. Turle, ascertained that according to the
1891 census the average number of occupants to each house
in East Finchley, North Finchley, Church End, and Whetstone
was 5.4, 57, 6.1, and 5.2 respectively. I am of opinion,
however, that since the census was taken the average number
of occupants to a house has increased, and in this belief I am
supported by my fellow officers and others. Certainly in
East and North Finchley much more of the property has
become tenemental and let in lodgings than was the case
3 or 4 years ago. By a careful consideration of the matter
I estimate that the numbers 5.4 and 57 for East and North
Finchley respectively should now be raised to 57 and 6.0.
Further the rate books showed 201 empty houses, and if one
individual be accredited to each of these (in order to account
for caretakers and their families) we have all the material
for making what I believe to be a close estimation of the
population. It thus works out to 18,015, a figure which falls
short by 675 of the estimation based upon an assumed increase
at the rate which obtained between 1881 and 1891, and I