Jessica Russell

Nov 11 2002

QR Paper II: Railways and Migration in Victorian England and Devon

 

“How could the development of railways in 19^th century England affect the lives of farm workers?”  To answer questions like this, theories look to the process of “modernization”, which is hypothesized to coincide with the manifestation of new patterns of mobility within the population. To what extent do “spatial variations in the nature and volume of mobility changes diffuse from one region to another, eventually showing a convergence into one more or less dominant pattern of geographic mobility”? To what extent do “changes in migration relate to other socio-economic developments during the period”? (Schwartz) Using the development of England and Wales from the mid 19^th century to the beginning of the 20^th, we will explore these patterns on the national level, the regional level, the local level, and the individual level.  Throughout our analyses we will keep in mind the socio-economic developments of agriculture and the railways. A possible answer to the first question would be that: “Developments in railways and shipping welcomed imports such as grain from other countries. These imports flooded the market, causing dramatic decreases in grain value and demand. This contributing substantially to an agrarian depression, may have forced farm workers to move, in search of other jobs.” Cause and effects are often difficult to judge when using data analysis to recreate history. We will find that it is easier to judge whether a relationship exists, than to judge what that relationship is.

The roles of agriculture and rail lines in 1851

Many changes accompanied a time of “high prosperity” in agriculture. In  1851 agriculture employed 1/5 of England’s population, a figure that continuously declined after that year. Recovering from an 1815 depression, farming land became the property of fewer people, who focused their production for the market, and no longer for families. Flourishing farms employed methods of “mixed farming” wherein livestock was integrated into the cycle of production: eating some of the produce, and affording healthy grain growth with manure. (Falkus, et al. p184-7)

The rail lines were an exciting new prospect for distance travel, though not available to most.  They brought forth new towns, added clout to established towns, and aided the growth of specialist resorts and residential towns. (Lawton and Pooley, p 196)

Patterns of net migration in England and Wales

Looking at England and Wales as a whole, we not only see plausible correlations between work opportunity, the rail lines, and the patterns of net migration, we also see that over time, such patterns merge, shift, and spread.

From the decade of 1851-61 to 1891-01, shifts in the trends of net migration are plainly visible by a comparison of two maps for those respective dates.  As shown in the map Total Percent Population Change due to Net Migration in England and Wales, the majority of the land is experiencing out migration.  The exceptions, areas of in migration stretch, in the north along the eastern coast along Newcastle and Cleveland; and from Birmingham in the center of the island, northward past Leeds. Other in migration clusters are concentrated in the west, around Manchester and Liverpool in the north; along the southern coast of Swansea and Cardiff; and in the southeast around London, accompanied by several scattered high-in migration districts along the eastern south coast.

 

 

Upon comparison with Map 1 Employment in Agriculture, 1851 and 1911 and Map 2 Employment in Manufacturing, 1851 and 1911 (Langton and Morris, pp 31-2), we find that in 1851, not only are the maps of employment in agriculture and employment in manufacturing greatly reciprocal (where one shows heavier employment, the other shows lighter), but they also correspond greatly with the findings of Total Percent Population Change due to Net Migration in England and Wales for 1851. The areas of heavier employment in manufacturing are concentrated where we have noted heavier in migration: near Newcastle, Cardiff, and stretching from Birmingham northward past Leeds. Reciprocally, the areas of heavier employment in agriculture coincide with the areas of out migration: in most of Wales and arching in a crescent moon shape from Devonport in the southwest northwards towards Whitehaven, skirting the London and Leeds areas.  Also relevant are the noted areas of mineral resources, which are also concentrated among the manufacturing belts, undoubtedly adding to the levels of in migration.  (Schwartz cp)

By the beginning of the 20^th century, we find that patterns of migration are much less fragmented; rather they act as units, with speckled regions merging to show dominant patterns, while previous patterns have expanded or shifted.

Across the land, out migration had slowed uniformly, (with a few small exceptions) while areas of in migration expanded or shifted. Visible in the map Total Percent Population Change due to Net Migration in England and Wales for 1901-11 we can see that where the country was covered with districts measuring more than a –10% population change attributable to net migration in 1851, it is now predominantly covered with districts measuring between 0% and –9.9% change due to net migration.

Among the apparent expansions with in migration, the most notable occurred along the Swansea-Cardiff Coast, which uniformly spread north, perhaps as more workers came to the coal and iron rich area; and the London area which spread in every direction away from the center of London, possibly a result of more people escaping city life and more workers looking to be servants rather than work in manufacturing. (See map 2.4 (Schwartz, R., Map 2.4 Employment in Domestic Service in 1911, 16) for a view of where England is heading regarding domestic service.)

In migration shifts seemed to dance around locally, with areas of high in migration replacing areas of out migration, and vice versa, complementing one another. Areas of mild out migration assume areas of previous in migration such as upper Whitehaven, inner London, and below Newcastle near Durham and Cleveland.  This could be attributed to exhaustion of the resources (e.g. mineral) from certain areas, yielding a need to move on locally to find more.  The areas of concentrated in migration in Manchester and Liverpool shifted. No longer concentrating around Liverpool and Manchester, the area divided: one region along the coast reached southwest from Liverpool (this new area is noted as a coal and lead source); and the other concentrated in the center of the land surrounding Leeds and Sheffield, with arms reaching towards Hull and Mansfield.  More prominent shifts occur around the coast of Newcastle, which spreads north while withdrawing in the south; the concentrated areas of in migration around Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield merely shifted around the same area. 

Socio-Economic Developments

Agriculture suffered a severe blow in the late 1870s – 1890s due to the expansion of trade in grains (by rail and ship) with North America and Russia. The prices in wheat and barley plummeted, undermining the mixed farming economy. “Wheat acreages tumbled, flocks of arable sheep dwindled, land went out of cultivation, farmers went bankrupt, rents collapsed” (Falkus, p185) are among the extensive list of damages. The arable farming regions were affected most drastically with devastatingly low demand and low prices; while increased livestock output provided a relatively stable solution for non arable farmers, meeting the increased demand for meat and dairy products with the new low costs of feed grains. The areas least affected according to The ‘Great Agricultural Depression’ in England at the End of the 19^th Century (Falkus, p186) were concentrated along the eastern and southern coasts of England.  Conversely, those areas showing the greatest output of wheat and barley (the arable regions affected most by the depression, covering most of eastern and central Britain) (Lawton and Pooley, p142, fig 9.1) coincide with the areas of greatest employment in agriculture in 1851 above, suggesting that the economic effects were considerable. It is plausible to imply that the damages suffered in agriculture contributed to the decline of agricultural workers, and possibly to the rise of employment in other sectors (manufacturing, for example).

In the 1850s rail lines were scattered mostly upon the eastern side of the island, which “confirmed the new regional hierarchy of the nineteenth century in its focus on London, the provincial capitals and industrial areas” (Lawton and Pooley, p196).  Rail density in England and Wales shows that by 1914, the rail lines had greatly matured, thoroughly covering the land.  It is apparent that the areas of expansions and shifts of in migration cling to the areas of greatest rail density. These regions also coincide with the areas of high employment in manufacturing, and of course areas of high in migration: Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield, Cardiff, and London.

 

Despite the railway developments, throughout the island, where rural out migration was prominent in the 1850’s it has lessened its degree by the 1900’s, though generally remaining a negative figure of out migration (as opposed to a positive figure of in migration).  It seems that out migration slowed after the initial boom of the first decades of railway production possibly due to the decline in the economy.  There is little evidence to support a correlation between rural out migration and the rail line expansion.

However, these correlations give strong evidence for a connection between work opportunity, and migration patterns, although it should be noted that with many divisions of work prominent, (such as mining, manufacturing, railway building, and domestic service) all of which could have contributed to the patterns of population change, it would be irresponsible to assume any direct correlation between one factor and the migration patterns.

Regional level of analysis- County

To examine the application of these patterns on the regional level, we will chart the population change and discuss probable attributes.

 From 1851 to 1911, Devon County revealed patterns in percent population change, attributable to both net migration and natural increase. During the decade of 1851-61 throughout Devon County we find overall out migration, except in the district of Tiverton, which registers a percent increase of about 2% due to net migration. The regions of light out migration (0% to –10%) cluster along the southern coast.  The districts of more dramatic out migration (-10% to –47%) are continuous from the center of the land to the northern coast, with smaller clusters in the Devon’s southernmost and easternmost tips.

 

Later, in the decade of 1901- 1911, we can see that out migration had lessened in magnitude throughout Devon. In migration withdrew from Tiverton and spread to the strip of coastal districts from Axminster to Totnes. The inland out migration slowed, with only two (center-most) districts at levels below -10%.

 Upon comparing these changes, it is evident that overall, out migration lessened in magnitude by 1911 throughout Devon, the in migration enjoyed by Tiverton in the 1850s spread urbanization to the surrounding coastal districts, but remained steady in magnitude. Rurally, out migration slowed everywhere else, except for the two inland districts of Crediton and Torrington, which continued their trend of relatively high out migration. The largest change occurred with Axminster and Honiton on the southern coast’s easternmost tip, these two experienced high out migration in the 1850s and by 1911 had in migration comparable to that of Tiverton. This is a strong reflection of the national migration convergence patterns for a rural region, since out migration slowed overall, and those districts with similar values of percent change due to net migration had converged by the latter decade.

It is important to note that with only two sets of figures revealing net migration for this area, we can not see whether nor to what extent fluctuation may have occurred between the 1850s and the 1900s.  Some districts probably had alternated considerably between in and out migration across those decades. The knowledge of fluctuation could support or undermine any assumptions made, depending upon the degree of fluctuation, or if the changes made from 1851-1911 were steady and gradual.

Socio-Economic Developments

Devon seems to reflect both the agricultural changes and the railway changes found throughout England and Wales. Agriculturally, the decline in the economy probably encouraged more workers to stay put, contributing to the slow of out migration.  However Devon was a region of more livestock farming and according to The ‘Great Agricultural Depression’ in England at the End of the 19^th Century (Falkus, p186), had a gross farm output in 1894 only between 90%-100% that of what it enjoyed pre-depression in 1873, a comparatively negligible decrease. Thus Devon was relatively well off, compared with farms across the nation; another good reason to stay put.

Locally, according to Rail Density in Devon, we see rail development starting in 1854 as a sparse line connecting well-to-do towns like Plymouth and Exeter to the rest of the system.  By 1914 this had greatly expanded to reach nearly every district within Devon. However, the areas of in migration, which drape the southern coast of Devon, cling to the original rail lines from 1854. As noted by Lawton and Pooley, the “rail companies added impetus to old-established towns such as … Newton Abbot.” (Lawton and Pooley, p196)

On the regional level we see the patterns continue: socio-economics offer reasonable explanations and the patterns converge, reflecting the national structure.

Local level of analysis- District

On the local level, we will examine these patterns in Okehampton, a district within Devon. Over the decades the trend of population change due to net migration fluctuated from high to low, but remained a constant out migration. The percent population change (due to net migration) reveals varying levels of out migration, which are relatively high during the first few decades of 1851-81 at  –17.4%, -9.1%, and –21.9%; and then steadily decrease towards zero through 1911 at –12.6%, -10.4%, and -1.8%, respectively.

Socio-Economic Developments

We may link this fluctuating pattern to external factors such as the expansion of the rail system and the contemporary agricultural changes. For instance, the decades in which Okehampton experiences a decrease of out migration roughly corresponds with the agrarian depression, which is a likely cause. Also, upon studying Rail Density in Devon, we can see that while there were no rail lines in the 1850s, by 1914 there are a few; Okehampton registered medium low rail density of 45-125 kilometers of lines per 1,000 square kilometers. These lines undoubtedly made a difference (probably with transportation of goods), but it is doubtful that much of the populace could afford to use the trains themselves.

Despite a lack of strong evidence to support the claims regarding modernization, as a representative of the rural country, Okehampton is acceptable, as it experiences the uniform decrease in rural out migration, and conforms with its neighboring rural districts.

The individual’s experience between 1851 and 1911

On the individual level, life simply progressed. In most areas, the lasting impact of migration was “gradual and more easily assimilated”. (Lawton and Pooley, p132) However, “life in the countryside could be every bit as harsh as that in towns: a combination of poor housing, lack of employment and poor social prospects frequently impelled townward migration rather than any specific urban attractions.” (Lawton and Pooley, p158)  The experiences of Navvies do not add much evidence to our investigation of the effects of the rail lines, but merely agree to what we already know; that the rail lines were expanding.

Many individuals found themselves “on the tramp” throughout their lives. Walking was the cheapest method of transportation, and if they had money, they may not have been looking for work. A navy remarked, “after I left home, I started on the road ‘tramping’ about the country, looking for work. Sometimes I’d stop a few weeks with one master and then go on again, traveling about; never long at a time in the one place.”(Burnett, p58)  Navvy gangs moved in groups as well, while “involved in railway construction on villages and small market towns.”(Lawton and Pooley, p132)

Individuals working in agriculture also needed to go out for work, however a narrative of a farm laborer supports the theories that the depression truly didn’t damage the livestock oriented agriculture industry very severely.  He speaks often of the animals, being raised worked, and eaten, while also indicating prosperity, “when I was seventeen I earned…the highest wage a man could get…I never needed to hire myself out, as I always had more jobs offered than I could undertake…Farmers were always wanting lads…”(Burnett, p67)  For working individuals, mobility was often a way of life.  They moved (on foot!) to where the work was, and generally not to where the trains could take them, probably for lack of monetary resources.

Conclusion

By scrutinizing two theories of “modernization” on four levels of analysis, we have found evidence supporting the ideas that socio-economic developments influence (and may be influenced by) changes in migration; and that the composition of mobility changes converged to form dominant patterns. However, it is questionable the extent to which the selected socio-economic factors were influential, as opposed to being influenced by the ramifications of modernization themselves. The development of the rail lines can be seen on every level, but it does not seem to directly contribute much to the percent change in population due to net migration.  The rail development seems more like a witness to the changes, as it is always present in the areas of dramatic change, perhaps partially because that is where the money is to build them. It seems to me that the development of the rail lines had less to do with moving people as passengers, than it had to do bringing about the agrarian changes (which were substantial) by improving access to imported goods, especially grains. The agricultural changes were significant, and it seems that there is much reason to believe that they contributed to the migratory lives of people in England and Wales from 1851 to 1911.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Lawton, R., Pooley, C. Britain 1740-1950. Edward Arnold, London. 1988.

 

Burnett, J. Useful Toil. Penguin Books

 

Schwartz, R.Railways and Migration in Victorian England. 2002.

 

Falkus, M, et al. Historical Atlas of Britain. Continuum. NY. 1981.