History 256

                                                                Heidi Fuchs

10/23/05

 

Lab 2

 

1. Briefly describe the pattern of population density in England and Wales in 1851.

There seem to be several loci of high population density: Greater London, Newcastle and Sutherland in the northeast, Manchester and Liverpool in the west, Wolverhampton and surrounding districts in the Central Midlands, and Bristol and areas of Cornwall in the southwest. The northwest, northeastern Midlands, Wales, East Anglia, and the southeast are overwhelmingly sparsely populated in comparison.

2.      Briefly describe one significant change to the 1851 pattern that you see in the map for 1881. If you see no significant change, briefly support your reasoning.

The Manchester-Liverpool region became even more densely populated with increasing urbanization in this “Factory District.” The Coketown of Dickens has solidified and expanded its grasp. The areas around Newcastle, Cardiff, and London also experience significant immigration (in-flow of population).  

3.      Briefly describe one significant changes to the 1881 pattern that you see in the map for 1911. If you see no significant change, briefly support your reasoning.

Some sort of urbanized/industrialized axis emerges, running north-northeast from Cardiff and Bristol in the southwest through Wolverhampton and its environs, the Manchester-Liverpool region, and up to Newcastle in the northeast of England. It is not completely continuous (with rural areas in Central Wales and Worcester, Yorkshire and North Riding), but provides a useful albeit simplified way to think about English population density at the beginning of the 20th century. The conspicuous exception to this general rule is, of course, London – even bigger and more heavily populated than yet seen.  

4.      Locate on your maps one place discussed in one of Winter’s chapters 3 through 8. Briefly describe the pattern of population density in that place over time. (A place might be as small as one registration district or a cluster of them.)

Winter mentions Liverpool only twice in chapter 7; he claims that sandstone scraps left over from dock excavations were used to fill a “flash” near Northwich (133) and mentions St. James’s churchyard, which was converted from a stone quarry between 1825 and 1829 next to Liverpool’s Anglican cathedral (139). The three attached maps tell us only that Liverpool’s population density was greater than 251 people per square kilometer in 1851, 1881, and 1901. The range of this quintile from 251 to 127,466 people per square kilometer allows significant changes in population density to go unnoticed, so I went back into ArcMap and obtained more specific information.

The area of the census registration district stayed constant throughout the period in question. In 1851, the population density was 24,056; in 1881, 19,578; in 1901, 13,732 people per km2. The population density thus declined almost by half between 1851 and 1901! I hypothesize this is because Liverpool, previously one of England’s most busy ports, lost population with the advent of efficient railway connections. Shipping lost its currency and miles of docks became less frequented; dockworkers and sailors most likely sought their fortunes in inland manufacturing districts instead.  

5.      Why? What explains a pattern? Study the maps below of mineral deposits, the distribution of employment in manufacturing, domestic service, and agriculture. Choose one of your “patterns” from above (1-3) and one of the maps below. Then briefly describe what you see to be a geographic correspondence between the two (there will not be any complete correspondence.” What do you think the correspondence means?

Agricultural districts cannot support a high concentration of people. This assumption is borne out by this lab. Comparing Map 5 (Employment in Agriculture) to my maps of population density in 1851 and 1901 reveals a geographic correspondence between the two. Those areas with the highest employment in agriculture in 1851 (between 40-49% of the employed population) such as Central and Northern Wales, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and Oxford, most of East Anglia, and North Riding mostly have a population density in the lowest quintile. Conversely, Lancashire – with less than 10% of its population engaged in agrarian pursuits – is a great conurbation in 1851. The 1901 map of agricultural employment shows that no district in all of England and Wales has more than 39% of its population involved in agriculture. Those areas with less than 10% agrarian employment mirror the aforementioned axis of high population density (see Question 3).