Melissa Gray
Prof. Schwartz
11/08/02
In 1895, a man by the name of Emanuel Lovekin began to record the events of his life. Besides recounting the circumstances of his marriage and self-education, his much of his autobiography tells of his travels in developing England, most of which were in the pursuit of work. Lovekin was a coal miner who migrated to places where such jobs were available. It is impossible to know whether or not Lovekin’s life story is representative of those of the majority of people living in England and Wales during the time and yet it points to some of the widespread affects the mining industry and railroads had on net migration during the Victorian Era.
Some believe that in the Victorian Era during which Emanuel lived, England and Wales were experiencing a process known as “Modernization”. According to the Theory of Modernization, developing countries, such as England and Wales in the 1850s through 1900s, underwent changes in the volume, frequency, extent, and patterns of net migration and these trends were thought to be irreversible. However, how accurate is the Theory of Modernization with regard to the patterns of net migration in England and Wales during the Victorian Era? For example, were trends in net migration associated with patterns in other socio-economic developments of the day, such as the mining industry and the extension of the railroads? Secondly, is the assumption that the volume of mobility increased over time throughout the country well founded? Did these assumptions regarding net migration hold true for a particular registration district, a region, or for the entire country? This paper will attempt to asses the legitimacy of the Theory of Modernization concerning the relationship between net migration and other socio-economic developments of the day as well as the idea that the volume of people on the move was increasing.
Net migration in the registration district of Bootle, in the county of Cumberland and all the north of England, between the decades of 1851 to 1861 and 1901 to 1911, demonstrated the effects of industry and the railroad on population distribution. In the district of Bootle, in the northwest of the region, the first decade showed a relatively high level of in-migration (12.1%), indicating that more people were moving into Bootle than were leaving (See Apendix A, Table 1 and Chart 1). In the next decade, the rate of in-migration increased slightly to peak at 12.8% before it dropped to 9.8% in the 1870s. Though this number was still positive, it indicated that there were less people coming into the registration district in relation to those leaving than during the previous decades.
This trend continued through the remaining three decades, yet the percentage of net migration became negative in the 1880s, signifying a switch to out-migration. Now more people were leaving Bootle than were coming in, despite the continued increase in population. This was possible because the natural increase (the number of births less the number of deaths in a given period) more that made up for the loss of residents due to net migration, hence the population continued to rise through the remaining decades. While the rate at which people were leaving the registration districts rose dramatically from a fairly stable migration percentage of -.8% between 1881 and 1891, it changed to a moderate out-migration of –8% for the decade of 1891 to 1901. And in the following decade the out-migration persistented to rise severely to –20%, from 1901 to 1911. Overall, between the first and last decades, the percentage of net migration was negative. In other words, the registration district of Bootle, after initially having in-migration of 12.1%, ended experiencing high out-migration of -20%.
However, the registration district of Bootle was not representative of the entire northern region of England. In the fdecade of 1861 to 1871, the western and northern coasts in the north of England were experiencing the highest rates of in-migration (see Appendix A, Map A) of at least five percent. Further inland, net migration becomes negative (0 to –10%), as indicated by the yellow-colored districts. Still, the innermost districts between Yorkshire and Northumberland are shown to have experienced even greater rates of out-migration, some in the highest levels of at least –13% (see Map A). These same rates of moderate to high out-migration can be seen along the northern border next to Scotland. Overall, most districts in the northern region of England were experiencing some level of out-migration in the 1850s, save for the coastal areas where there were larger pockets of in-migration.
In the decade from 1901 to 1911, the net migration of the North of England had changed considerably (see Appendix A, Map B). At this time, most of northern England had reached a more stable level of net migration. The majority of registration districts were experiencing low out-migration from 0 to –10%. Yet there were also some districts still experiencing higher levels of out-migration, mainly along the middle of the Scottish border and along the western coast in the county of Cumberland. Nevertheless, there persisted some areas of in-migration in the south around Sheffield and closer to Wales, extending to the east, and also up near Newcastle on the northeastern coast. In some of these areas, in-migration was still in at its highest rates of at least 5%. On the whole, despite some areas of high in-migration or out-migration, the majority of registration districts in northern England were going through relatively low levels of out-migration.
According to the Theory of Modernization, the trends of net migration in northern England ought to have coincided with the development of socio-economic conditions, such as the development of the mining industry, as facilitated by the growth of the railroad, during the specified decades of 1861 to 1871 and 1901 to 1911. According to a census map of 1851 (Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 171), there were deposits of minerals in a number of areas in the north. Along the northwestern border next to Scotland there was coal mining activity and non-ferrous mining. On the northeastern coast in and around Newcastle, the map shows large coalmining deposits and well as extensive mining activity. In the same area there was also iron and non-ferrous mining taking place. Similarly, in the south of the region, in the vicinity of Sheffield in northern Yorkshire, there were also large coal mining operations, as well as small iron mining facilities and stone and slate quarries. However, further inland there was also coal and tin mining, but, as indicated by the size of the symbols used in this area, these mining operations were somewhat small, especially in comparison to those in the east. By and large, the dominant mining facilities in northern England existed along the northern east coast and in the southern parts of the region.
Although mineral deposits existed in a number of areas in northern England in the early 1850s, not all lasted or were mined equally from 1861 to 1911. Coal, the fuel for the new steam-driven age, and iron, the raw form of steel used to construct railroad tracks, were exploited most heavily as a result of high demand. For example, in Pigot’s Pocket Topography of England, published in 1840, it was stated that “the chief colleries are those of Whitehaven and Workington - the former the most extensive, perhaps, in the kingdom” (Pigot, Pigot’s Pocket Topography of England, Cumberland). Around 1840, areas of small or moderate coal deposits like those in Cumberland, including Whitehaven and Workington, were at the height of production. However, roughly around 1865 “west Cumberland waned as their [coal] reserves declined” (Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 172). By the mid-1860s, the coal industries in the western parts of northern England were doing poorly and as their resources were being used up, it was evident that their days of operation were numbered. “As production shifted away from more accessible deposits to those with the greatest resources, the best access to markets by rail and water, the leading producers became North East England” and “Yorkshire and Lancashire” (Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 172). Unlike the small, yet easily extracted deposits of coal in western Cumberland, the mining industries along the eastern coast in Newcastle and in the southern parts of the region near Sheffield flourished in the latter part of the 19th century.
The expansion of certain mines in northern England was made possible in part by the improvement of technology and techniques used to gain access to previously unobtainable large coal deposits, as well as the expansion of the railways in eastern and southern regions of northern England. The sections of northern England that incorporated extensive mining activities also contained clusters of railroads by 1876 (see Appendix A, Map F). In the fourth quarter of the 19th century, both the Newcastle and northern Yorkshire had a concentrated number of railroads in comparison to other parts of the region. This rise in rail density probably allowed for and even encouraged the increase in mining activities in these regions over the decades, as trains would have been necessary to transport large amounts of the mineral commodities being extracted to markets where they could be sold. Wherever successful mining industries were to be found, high rail densities were needed to conduct business.
The advancements in the mining industry and extension of the railroads in northern England coincided with the trends in net migration, as the Theory of Modernization would suggest. For example, in western Cumberland in the decade of 1861 to 1871, when coal mining was still a profitable for small businesses, in-migration was at its highest levels (see Appendix A, Map A). Then, once the coal reserves in this part of the region began to decline later in the century and most assuredly by the 20th century, net migration also was decreasing. By 1911, there were out-migration rates of at least-13% (see Appendix A, Map B). It is plausible that the high rates of out-migration could be attributed to the loss of mining jobs in the area. Without work, the incentive for a working-class person, like Emanuel Lovekin mentioned earlier, to stay would have been gone, and therefore it would have made sense for someone like him to leave to find such work elsewhere. On the other hand, in Newcastle and the northern area of Yorkshire where the mining industries continued to grow, there also persisted greater numbers of registration districts with medium to high levels of in-migration (0 to 5 or 300%). The creation of new mining jobs through the expansion of mining operations in areas like these might have been what kept attracting people to migrate and settle in Yorkshire and Newcastle. After losing a job in western Cumberland, it is feasible that a laborer like Lovekin might have migrated to a place such as Newcastle to find work that he had been trained to do in the mining business. It is possible that the development of the mining industry in certain areas of northern England produced jobs that attracted more people to move there. The synonymous nature of the trends between the growth of the mining industry with the railroads and the net-migration rates suggest that certain socio-economic conditions did affect net migration, as stated by the Theory of Modernization.
In spite of the association demonstrated between the growth of the mining industry and the railroads, the idea in the Theory of Modernization that the volume of mobility increased over time is not supported by the trends evident in net migration maps for that period. Between the decades of 1861 to 1871 and 1901 to 1911 the amount of net migration decreased and didn’t grow as the theory claimed it should have. During the decade of 1861 to 1871, the extent of net migration was greater than during the decade 1901 to 1911. In the first decade, the chloropleth map of population change due to net migration (see Appendix A, Map C) shows high levels of mobility throughout northern England. Extreme out-migration of at least –13% was occurring in the northern most parts of the region bordering Scotland and down the middle areas of the region and in Sheffield as well. The relatively high absolute values of out-migration statistics indicate that large amounts of people were leaving these districts during the 1860s. Conversely, along the east and west coasts of northern England, in addition to a few western inland areas, registration districts were undergoing high rates of in-migration. According to the map there were rates of at least 5%, again indicating high levels of mobility as more people moved into these districts from other parts than left. Taken as a whole, the populations in northern England in the 1860s were highly mobile.
However, in the later decade of 1901 to 1911 the volume of movement decreased, instead of increased as the Theory of Modernization said it should. Save for a comparatively small number of registration districts in the northern and western parts of the region experiencing the highest levels of out-migration, as well as a few scattered districts with high in-migration along the eastern and western coasts and some further inland, northern England was dominated by very low levels of out-migration. The majority of the registration districts had no more than a 10% decline in net migration. These lower numbers indicate that more people were staying put and therefore their overall mobility decreased. According to this data, the population trends in northern England were not undergoing as much change and were therefore stabilizing. Unlike the Theory of Modernization proposes, the movement of people in northern England decreased over time, not increased.
At the same time, the entire country of England and Wales was showing the same patterns of net migration in the decades of 1861 to 1871 and 1901 to 1911. Overall, between the two decades, the population levels in the registration districts of England and Wales were stabilizing as more registration districts fell into the lowest category of in-migration instead of into high levels of in or out-migration as shown in the earlier decade (see Appendix A, Maps C and D). This same trend was evident in more focused regions of England and Wales as well. For example, in the first decade (see Appendix A, Map C), many registration districts extending from the southwestern region of England up through the mid-section of the eastern coast, were experiencing very high levels of out-migration (–13.3 to -46.7 %). However, in the decade between 1901 to1911 (see Appendix A, Map B), despite some high in-migration levels in the southwest, things seem to have slowed. This is indicated by the larger number of registration districts in that area undergoing population decreases of 8% to no change at all. Likewise, not even a handful of the most extreme levels of out-migration persisted in the region in comparison to the original number of registration districts that were experiencing high out-migration.
The same can be said regarding the registration districts in and around London. From 1851 to 1861 there appeared to be very high in-migration in and adjacent to the city of London (see Appendix A, Map C). This region was skirted by lower levels of in-migration, which in turn were surrounded by low levels of out-migration and in some cases very high levels. However, as in the agrarian region mentioned above, the levels of high in or out-migration in the area in and around London began to level off in the 1900s (see Appendix A, Map D). No longer was London entirely colored green, indicating high in-migration, but high and some low levels of out-migration appeared in and around its center. The same can be said for the surrounding areas that originally had high levels of out-migration (-12.3 to –46.7%). In the decade of 1901 to 1911, they too had stabilized and were experiencing lower levels of in and out-migration (see Appendix A, Map D).
The trend seen in the south of England between the decades of 1851 to 1861 and 1891 to 1901 continued in Wales and eastward to the coast. The extremely volatile registration districts that, in the 1860s, were either gaining or losing high numbers of people (Appendix A, Map C) were, by the 1900s, experiencing lower rates of population loss, most between -8 and 0% (see Appendix A, Map D). However, districts around the cities of Cardiff and Sheffield continued to experience high levels of in-migration in the latter decade. Overall, districts that originally were experiencing high rates of in-migration or out-migration, predominantly were going through out-migration levels of -8 to 0% in the 1890s and, though there were fewer instances of high in-migration, some registration districts in southern Wales and the Sheffield area still showed high levels of in-migration.
Like northern England, certain socio-economic conditions, including the development of the mining industry and the railroads, affected net migration as proposed by the Theory of Modernization. Just as in northern England, it was likely that the expansion of larger mines and the retirement of smaller ones attracted people from one location to another, hence altering net migration. Large mining facilities existed around Burmingham and Sheffield in the inland areas and also around Cardiff in southern Wales and Exeter in the southwest (Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 171). These were the same regions, which in the 1900s, continued to show high levels of in-migration (see Appendix A, Map D). “By the later nineteenth century, the larger collieries employed upwards of 1000 men”(Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 168), which might explain the persistent in-migration into such areas. On the other hand, smaller mining facilities like those in northern Wales near Conwy and in the vicinity of Bristol, despite having experienced high rates of in-migration in the 1860s (over 5%), by the 1900s, were going through extreme levels of out-migration (at least -13%). On the whole, areas with large mining operations continued to have high rates of in-migration between the decades of 1861 to 1871 and 1901 to 1911, while smaller businesses began to show declining levels of net migration by the 1900s.
It is plausible that the expansion of the larger mines in southern Wales, Devon and near Burmingham and Sheffield, forced smaller mines around Bristol and Conwy out of business. In the coal industry especially, “production was progressively focused on larger coal fields as the development of deep mining enabled concealed coal measures to be exploited” (Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 168). As technology increase later in the century, mines like those in Cardiff in southern Wales, Exeter and around Bristol thrived. Additionally, “large inland coalfields benefited as railway companies competed for the coal trade to distant markets such as London” (Lawton and Pooley, Britain, pp. 168). As the northern England, mining businesses encouraged the extension of railroads in order to transport their large amounts of commodities to places where they could be sold. This may explain why, in particular, parts of southern Wales and near Burmingham and Sheffield, there appeared high levels of rail densities by the 1870s (see Appendix A, Map F). In the 19th century, freight trains were necessary to the ventures of the mining industry.
On the other hand, the high out-migration in the 1890s in districts with smaller mining facilities might be explained by their inability to compete with the expansion of the larger ones. Around 1895, Emanuel Lovekin mentions that the Whitefield Colliery Company “give it up, and Chatterley Colliery Company took it off Mr. Charles Homer”(Burnett, Useful Toil, pp.294). Since Mr. Homer is a small business owner in the mining industry, the purchase of his operation by a larger company, like the Chatterly Colliery Company, is an example of the consolidation that took place in the mining industry, and the inability of smaller operations to survive amidst the competition of larger companies. Just as the enlargement of some mines produced more jobs that might have been a factor in maintaining high levels of in-migration, it was possible that the closure of others that decreased job opportunities also inspired some people to leave the area in search of other work, thus contributing to higher levels of out-migration. These trends demonstrated the possibility that the idea in the Theory of Modernization about the connection between socio-economic conditions and net migration is true.
What was more, similar to northern England, was that the net migration trends throughout the entire country did not support the hypothesis in the Theory of Modernization that the volume of geographic mobility increased over time. Though the chloropleth map of England and Wales depicting net migration in the1860s (see Appendix A, Map C) is dominated by registration districts experiencing medium to high levels of out-migration in southern Wales and from the southwest to East Anglia, as wells as high levels of in-migration in the south in the vicinity of London, by the 1900s, much of this changes. In the 1900s, registration districts with very low levels of out-migration dominate the whole country (see Appendix A, Map D). This suggests that there was an overall trend towards population stability and less mobility, or a decrease in the amount of geographic mobility. The net migration statistics for the decades of 1861 to 1871 and 1901 to 1911 do not support the idea in the Theory of Modernization that geographic mobility increased over time.
Overall, the data for net migration in England and Wales in the 1860s and 1900s suggest that certain socio-economic conditions, such as the mining industry, did have an impact on levels of net migration throughout the country. Also, trends in net migration in northern England and the entire country demonstrated a leveling off of migration levels. It was likely that by the 1900s populations across the country were stabilizing after having gone through extreme changes earlier in the century. Though the net migration information for these two decades demonstrated the possibility that the rate of migration was related to other socio-economic conditions, it did not support the point in the Theory of Modernization that the volume of geographic mobility should increased over time. As a result, it is likely that the Theory of Modernization is not an entirely reliable guideline for analyzing the evolution of civilizations.
Work Cited
Burnett, John, ed.Useful Toil. New York: Penguin, 19??.
Lawton, Richard and Colin Pooley. Britian 1740-1950: An Historical Geography. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 19??.
Pigot. Pigot’s Pocket Topography of England. 1840. <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/qr02/pigot/introdn.htm>
Table 1: Census Statistics for Bootle, 1851-1911
|
Decade |
Pop. Beg. |
Pop. End |
Change in Pop. |
% Change |
Natural Increase |
% Natural Increase |
Net Migration |
% Net Migration |
|
1851-1861 |
5973 |
5846 |
-127 |
-2.1 |
582 |
9.7 |
-709 |
12.1 |
|
1861-1871 |
5846 |
8475 |
2629 |
45 |
1540 |
26.3 |
1089 |
12.8 |
|
1871-1881 |
8475 |
12154 |
3679 |
43.4 |
2487 |
29.3 |
1192 |
9.8 |
|
1881-1891 |
12154 |
14790 |
2636 |
21.7 |
2760 |
22.7 |
-124 |
-.8 |
|
1891-1901 |
14790 |
15800 |
1010 |
6.8 |
2296 |
15.5 |
-1286 |
-8 |
|
1901-1911 |
15800 |
13577 |
-2223 |
14.1 |
959 |
6.1 |
-3182 |
-20 |