Differing Responses to an Industrialising Economy - eTheses ...

Table 3.1 Population of Whole Study Area in censuses 1676-1861
1676 1676 1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1861
(low) (high)
8129 11726 17479 19386 22372 24640 26732 28616 28904
Totalling figures for the Compton census we obtain a population figure between
8129 and 11726 for the whole study area in 1676. 3 The mean (average) figure of 9929 in
1676 almost trebled to 26732 in 1841 and continued to grow thereafter. However,
population growth was uneven in both time and space, as demonstrated below.
To set the population figures of the study area and its component parts in context
it may be useful to refer to national and county population numbers and also to
population studies of nearby places undertaken by other historians. Wrigley shows that
the national population grew from some 5,109,000 in 1681 to 8,671,000 in 1801, a
growth of some 69.7%. 4
Breaking this down into shorter periods there was growth of a
mere 1.9% between 1681 and 1701, followed by growth of 13.6% from 1701 to 1751.
However, the growth within different regions was not uniform. The study area
straddles three counties, which grew at or above the national rate. From 1700-1750
Worcestershire probably grew at approximately the national rate, while Warwickshire
and Gloucestershire both grew by an impressive 48%. 5
Within these counties there were
hot-spots of growth such as Birmingham and the Black Country and certain parishes in
the study area.
3 Figures for the Compton Census quoted in this chapter are from Dr Peter Kitson of the Cambridge Group
and also from A. Whiteman, ed., ‘The Compton Census of 1676, a critical edition’, Records of the Social
and Economic History Soc., New Series, 10, (Oxford, OUP), (1986). The low figure for 1676 is obtained
using a multiplier of 4 and the high figure a multiplier of 5. The mean (average) figure is thus based on a
multiplier of 4.5. Various writers including Hey, Arkell, Eversley and Dyer advocate using different
multipliers to convert numbers of families or households into population estimates at different periods, but
they usually come within the range 4 to 5, which serves my purpose here.
4 Wrigley, in Floud, and Johnson, The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, pp. 64-5.
5 I am indebted to Prof. Sir Tony Wrigley for county population estimates.
49