ART. VII.-First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths & Marriages in England.-London: 1839. THE HE institution of a new system of registration in 1837, subject to the control of a central board, expressly organized for the purpose, is an important era in statistical annals. Under the old system many inaccuracies were permitted, if not unavoidable: nor was the kind of information afforded sufficiently precise to be made available for the solution of many questions depending on the duration of human life. The insufficiency of existing data has been generally admitted, even as regards the most common questions of business, but as regards the nicer points involved in the regulation of Benefit and Friendly Societies, they have afforded no assistance whatever. It has been found impossible to make any estimate of the influence of locality in different portions of the empire on the health of its inhabitants; to compare the low with the hilly districts, the north with the south, or the maritime with the inland situations; to exhibit the influence of civic as compared with rural life; to display the relative effects of agriculture, mining, and manufactures, on the respective followers of these occupations; or, lastly, to point out the influence of various exterior agencies in modifying the conditions and health of the people. As the report before us supplies many of these defects, and has every appearance of having been drawn up with scrupulous accuracy, we shall avail ourselves of its contents so far as they go, and endeavour, with such other aids as we possess, to lay before our readers a succinct account of the actual state of the population. Although it would be an error to suppose that the prosperity of any country is strictly indicated by the degree of condensation of its population, yet there can be little doubt, when associated with wealth and a low mortality, that it must be received as an index of the thriving state of its inhabitants. Ireland, it is true, forms a remarkable exception to the truth of this observation; but the case of Ireland has never been satisfactorily explained, unless indeed the culture of potatoes, which constitute the chief article of subsistence, may be considered as the substitute for all other necessaries of life. In India, and also in China, where the population is unusually dense, the uncommon productiveness of the soil, in rice and other edible grain, has usually been regarded as the cause of this condition of the population; whereas the reverse is uniformly observed to be the case in the northern and less genial latitudes. The following is a summary of the population of the United Kingdom and its dependencies, according to the last enumeration in 1831, to which has been added the estimated increase since that period up to January 1, 1839; which has been calculated on the basis that the increase has proceeded in the same ratio as that for the preceding decade. Total.. 14,899,199 899,548 2,465,630 8,873,284 113,666 277,017 27,528,315 The population of the metropolis in 1831 was 1,594,890, to which, if we add 241,423, or at the rate of 18 per cent. annual increase, will render the population on Jan. 1, 1839, 1,836,313, or nearly two millions! The area of the whole United Kingdom has been estimated very differently. Taking it, according to Mr. Driver, at 77,394,433 acres, or 120,772 square miles, this will give 227 inhabitants to every square mile, which is considerably higher than that for any other country of equal extent in Europe. There is a good deal of disparity in this respect in the different divisions of the empire, and also in the different counties. In England the density of the population is most conspicuous, being 294 to the square mile. Next to England comes Ireland, or 292 to 1, and after that, Scotland, or 80 to 1; so that Scotland is not one-third as thickly peopled as either of the former countries; a circumstance which may be accounted for by the greater extent (nearly one-half) of barren and waste moor and mountain lands in that country, and from the continual migration of its inhabitants to the more fertile districts of England. The same inequality of distribution is observable in the different counties, in which the number of the inhabitants is found to vary from 133 to 37,000 per square league. The latter term expresses the extraordinary condensation of the population of the county of Middlesex, including the greater part of London, which is without a parallel in ancient or modern history; while the former indicates the dispersed and scanty population in the unhealthy and fenny districts of Leicestershire and Cambridgeshire, as well as in some of the Welsh and Scottish counties. It is difficult to estimate the density of the population of London, properly so called; but of the metropolis, in cluding the suburban districts, it is at the rate of 26,512 to each square mile. In some of the most populated parts of the town of Manchester, it is at the rate of 73,121 per square mile; and of Liverpool, so high as 83,262 per square mile. One of the most remarkable circumstances connected with this subject is the extraordinary increase of the population of late years. To put this in an appreciable and striking point of view, it will be necessary to compare the existing population with that of former periods, as well as with the population of other countries. Mr. Sharon Turner, whose investigations into the Saxon portion of our history entitle his opinion to much consideration, has estimated the population of England and Wales, at the period of the Norman conquest, at 1,700,000 souls. In 1377, in the reign of Edward III, it amounted, according to the official tax-tables of the time, to 2,635,000; in 1577, according to Raleigh, to 4,500,000; in 1700, according to Rickman, to 5,475,000; in 1750, to 6,467,000; and, in 1770, to 7,428,000. From the first of these epochs, therefore, to 1839, the number of the people of England and Wales increased twenty-six-fold, or from 29 inhabitants to each square mile (which is about equivalent to the present population of Russia and Turkey), they have multiplied to 275 to each square mile. If Ireland and Scotland are viewed in this aspect, the most remarkable contrast is exhibited. From 1698 to 1831, a period of 133 years, the population of Scotland was found to have increased only from 1,025,000 to 2,365,000, or about 231 per cent.; while in Ireland, during the same period, the increase amounted, according to South and W. Petty, from 1,096,647 to 7,767,000, or 708 per cent., which is rather less than three times as great as took place in England and Wales, during the same period, and more than three times as great as took place in Scotland. This conclusion appears so incredible, that we are compelled to believe that the data on which the Irish calculations are founded must be in correct. During the first half of the last century, the increase of the population of England and Wales amounted to only 17 per cent.; but, during the last half, it rose to 52 per cent.; or, if we take the 30 years from 1700 to 1730, and compare them with the last 30 years of the century, the proportional increase was as 4 to 27 per cent. But how far does this fall short of the increase during the present century, from 1801 to 1831, when it amounted to upwards of 56 per cent., or, fourteen times more rapid than for the corresponding period of the previous century. In fact, the total increase of the population (6,925,767), during the 39 years of the present century, very nearly doubles the total increase of the population (4,052,660), for the whole of the last century. At the present rate the population would nearly double itself in 48 years. But, at the time of the Revolution in 1688, it would have required, at the then existing rate of increase, 250 years to produce this effect. The increase of population in some of our great manufacturing and commercial towns, exceeds all modern example, as will appear from the following table. Manchester. Glasgow. Birmingham. Leeds. Year. Inhabitants. Year. Inhabitants. Year. Inhabitants. Year. Inhabitants. It is to be observed, however, that the rate of progression for England and Wales appears to have reached its maximum. From 1801 to 1821, the mean decennial increase was 16:13 per cent.; but, for the corresponding decade, from 1821 to 1831, it fell to 1601 per cent. If a similar comparison be instituted between Great Britain and France, during comparable periods of their history, that is, before and after the war, when the territory of the latter was again reduced to its ancient limits, a like result will be educed. In 1791, the population of France was estimated, by a commission of the Constituent Assembly, at 26,363,000; in 1817, it was computed at 29,217,465; and, in 1831, at 32,560,934. During 40 years, therefore, from 1791 to 1831, the increase amounted to 6,197,934, or 231 per cent.; while, during the same period, the increase in Great Britain amounted to 62 per cent.-that is, in the proportion of 8 to 3, or nearly three times as great. Or, if we take the 14 years, from 1817 to 1831, the increase for France will be found to be 11-44, but for Great Britain, 22.11 per cent. Still the mere increase of population is no criterion of the civilization or prosperity of a nation, but depends on many other circumstances, which we shall allude to presently. According to M. Jonnés, the population in England and Russia would double itself in about the same period, that is, in 47 to 48 years; in Prussia it would double itself in a space less by nine years; while in Germany it would require more by 73, and in France more by 78 years, than would be required for England. The inference from these facts is too obvious to be mentioned. The increase of population in this country has not depended on the number of births being greater in relation to the whole number of the people, but to a decrease in the rate of mortality; not because many are born, but because few die during a given period. This is an important fact, and makes the chief difference between other countries and our own. It is admitted to be generally true that as civilization advances, a proportional diminution takes place in the births and deaths, and generally also in the marriages; while, on the contrary, it is an unerring sign of barbarity, when the mortality is great and the reproduction rapid. The proportion of marriages in Great Britain to the whole population was, in 1750, as 1 to 115, but it gradually fell to 1 in 127 in 1831, since which period it appears again to have diminished to 1 in 145. M. Bossi, in his Statistique du Département de L'Aisne, which he has divided into four portions, has exhibited, in a very striking point of view, the direct relation which prevails between the births, deaths, and marriages; and, at the same time, the dependence of these events upon the fact of locality. Deaths. Marriages. In the mountainous districts....1 in 38.3 In parts interspersed with 1 in 20.8 Births. 1 in 179 1 in 34.8 1 in 28.8 1 in 27.5 1 in 107 1 in 26.1 ponds and marshes.......... But in Cadiz, where, according to Colonel Sykes, the mortality exceeds that for any other capital city in Europe, the annual deaths exceeding the annual births in the proportion of 2,190 to 2,086, the marriages are only 1 in 170 inhabitants. The fecundity also of marriage fell in the same degree. In 1688 there was 1 birth to every 28 inhabitants; but, in 1831, it had fallen to 1 in 36; in 1838, to 1 in 40. In Scotland it was, in 1831, 1 in 34; in Ireland, 1 in 27; in Russia, 1 in 24. The same decrease of fecundity is observable in France; but England, contrary to the general belief, is the least fecund of any country in Europe. In Russia, Prussia, and Austria, at least four births occur to every 100 inhabitants; while in Scotland, France, and England, the proportion is diminished to 3 per cent. or less. The decrease in mortality is still more con |