Anamaria Aristizabal
November 21, 2000
1.
Please
see maps
2.
A)
Continuity: The maps let us see general patterns of continuity in England, and
I will list the most visible ones. I see continuity in the Southeast and Southwest
regions. They both have a mixed assortment of percentage change of registration
districts. There is however a bit more in-migration into registration districts
in the tip of the Southeast region, but overall, the patterns remain the same.
This is also true for the London area, for the two time periods there is a
predominantly high in-migration into the city and surrounding registration
districts. I would say this holds truth in the Norfolk, East Anglia region as
well. There is a mixed, tending to more out-migration in these registration
districts. Their slight change in 1891-1901 is to have even more out-migration.
The other region in which I see continuity is the Manchester-Liverpool region.
There continues to be a very high in-migration to this metropolitan area, we
will see the reasons for this continuity in a latter paragraph.
B) Change: I will summarize the main regions of change in percent
change in population from 1861-1871 to 1891-1901. A region that jumps to my
eyes is Whales and Western Counties. This region has a very significant
increase in in-migration. Equally, the Sheffield shows the same pattern. In the
northern part of England, while the northwest lost some inhabitants (it has
higher out-migration) the northeast (Newcastle) had an increase in population.
3.
Based
on my previous comments, and the observations I made of the maps, I will have
to support Winter, in his thesis of overall continuity in the Victorian era. In
my map I saw more regions where patterns were maintained than vice versa. The
continuity could be explained with the fact that by 1861-71 until 1891-1901 the
most important changes in the infrastructure of England had occurred, such as
the railways, the main industrial areas, and the big cities. The most important
changes occurred prior to the dates that I am currently analyzing. The period
between the 1861-71 decade and the 1891-1901 decade is quite long, and more
aggressive changes would be predicted.
Some changes did
occur, as we previously commented. I hypothesize that the regions that had an
increase in population such as Newcastle because of the new rail lines that
connected them with the rest of the country, as well as attractive work
opportunities. The Mineral resources map indicates that in the Newcastle region
there were prominent coal sites as well as iron. These might have been
accessible to more people after the rail line was established, and so
in-migration was encouraged. Whales, Western Counties, and Sheffield exhibited
more in-migration as well, most likely due to the same reasons as Newcastle.
The Mineral Resources map shows major coal deposits in these two regions. I
found two cases representing out-migration: the northwest and the region around
Oxford. These places could have been more rural, with fewer opportunities for
work.
Main point
The main pattern in percent change in population due to migration that
can be seen in the London area between 1851 and 1911 is that there is less
in-migration in the central areas of the city, and more in the more distant
regional districts part of greater London, in two directions: towards the east,
(Rochford) and towards the southwest.
In the two first decades we see that in the center of London (where the smallest circle is) there is a very high in-migration. There is a proliferation of RDs with the highest category of positive percent change due to migration, surrounded by the next highest category, and these in turn, surrounded by the lowest but still positive category of positive percent change due to migration. We thus see a concentric concentration of high percent change due to migration.
This pattern changes in the last two
decades. Here we don’t have this concentric pattern any more, there seems to be
less in-migration in general, and certainly not in the center of London, like
the previous maps. The high in-migration RDs have shifted towards the east and
southwest. There were seven (or more) RDs with 30-314% change due to migration
in 1861-71 and only 3 in 1891-1901. There are four RDs who significantly
increased their percent change due to migration (that is, increased in a whole
category): Romford, Rochford, Dartford, and Sheppey. They are all located in
the outskirts of the city, towards the east. The rest of the RDs in the center
of London either remained the same or got less percent change due to migration.
London’s
growth had no laws and is incomparable to any other city. It grew exponentially
in area and in population in the Victorian times and beyond. Even though in
some areas of industry it fell behind, its power in terms of commerce, trade
and government attracted thousands. London became an international city, and
gained a reputation worldwide for this because of the intense trade, its seaport
and its extensive rail network. Foreigners settled in London, especially young
ones, in pursuit of the myriad of economic opportunities available.
Greater London grew
especially due to the new transportation available. Inner areas of London were
losing people, and this is due to the railway, which allowed people to commute
easier, even on a daily basis. “Between 1871 and 1901 the population of Greater
London rose faster than of any of the biggest provincial conurbations and far
faster than the national population as a whole”(Briggs, 1963).
The high concentration of people,
especially in the center, and the advent of the railways, increased the
property prices dramatically, to the point of forcing many people to the
outskirts of the city. The biggest movements were towards the southwest and the
east, which is also partly explained with the new available railroads.
Poverty became a problem in London
like never before, in the Victorian times. It was estimated that more than
thirty percent of the London residents were poor. The majority of them lived in
the eastern part of the city: “the East End”. There was a strong separation
between rich and poor. It is very possible that poverty also forced people out
of inner London towards the periphery.
We have seen that there are many
factors that explain the migration patterns, however, we will discuss one of
the most important ones, related to all the others: the railways.
Relationship with Railways
The railways seem to have an influence in the general shift towards the east of high in-migration. In 1854, there were only limited lines, and not reaching the East Side (towards Rochford). Out of the four RDs that witnessed an increase in in-migration, the rail lines only reached one: Romford. Whereas in 1876, prior to the second decade studied, the other three RDs are now connected to central London by rail lines: Rochford, Sheppey and Dartford. With these findings I would hypothesize that the presence of the railways facilitated the in-migration to RDs located towards the east, and other areas of greater London. We can see in the 1891-1901 map that in general, where there is in-migration, there are rail lines (all the south-western RDs with positive percent change due to migration have an extensive rail network going through them).
The railways had a profound influence in the city of London. Many authors have covered this subject extensively. In their construction, whose cost was very high (for both stations and rails), created many disturbances. “Nearly all the London railways forced a passage to their terminal stations by demolishing small properties lying in their path.” (Simmons). The construction of only St. Kathrine’s Dock displaced 11,000 people in 1927. It is estimated that 72,000 (although possibly many more) were displaced from 1853 to 1900. The most amount of displacements occurred in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. These displacements forced people to out-migrate from the center of the city, where the highest concentration of stations and rails were being built.
The railroads were very related to the industrial boom occurring in the Greater London area. It is said that Greater London was the biggest center for manufacturing in the country, and this activity depended heavily on the rail for materials and coal. Many people were pulled from all parts of the country to this dynamic manufacturing region, which employed more than the national average.
Coal was also an important factor related to population migration and railways. The consumption grew significantly in London, increasing the employment opportunities related to it. Food supply for London was a major force to attract people, being a growing sector trying to satisfy the heavy demands of such a growing city.
Conclusion
All these factors can be related to the patterns observed in the maps. They serve as partial explanation to the migration patterns in London from 1851 to 1911. As we can see, there is an indisputable pattern of change between the studied dates, as opposed to continuity. While out-migration increases in a sustained manner in inner London, the opposite occurs in outer London. There are many more patterns to observe and quantify, as well as provide explanations for. I would like to include calculations of rail density compared to rates of migration. I would also like to create maps and analyze the difference between male and female migration. I will provide these details in the final paper.
Relation with my paper
I
will incorporate these findings in my paper investigating how urbanization
trends responded to the increasing in-migration in the greater London area, as
well as the constant in-migration in all parts of London. All this in-migration
in the city must have caused problems because of high population density in the
city, something that the green city movement addressed, along with other
problems related to industrialization, such as negative effects of railroads.
Also, I will investigate the effect of large numbers of people living in London
who were not originally from there, did this cause any patterns in the layout
of the city? Did this worsen the mechanistic trends of the city or diversify
the neighborhoods, creating a more community-like, non-homogenous, organic
city?
Bibliography
Simmons,
Jack, The Railway in Town and Country 1830-1914, David and Charles, London, UK.
Kellet,
John.1969. The Impact of Railways in Victorian Cities, University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, Canada.
George,
Henry. 1941. Progress and Poverty, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, Inc., New
York.