The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911: Updating Ravenstein and the Step-Migration Hypothesis The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851- 1911: Updating Ravenstein and the Step-Migration Hypothesis* Joseph Day Abstract: Since their publication in 1885 and 1889 respectively, Ravenstein’s laws of migration – which have since been summarised as eleven broad rules – have achieved something approaching universal acceptance (Ravenstein 1885, 1889). While most of these laws have been tested and retested using data drawn from a range of countries and time periods – invariably reconfi rming the status of his hypotheses as “laws” – one hypothesis has been resistant to attempts to confi rm Ravenstein’s interpretation; the so-called step-migration hypothesis. Given the con- fl icting defi nitions of step-migration, this article fi rst recounts the historiography of the term and the subsequent reason why this paper has defi ned step-migration as a means by which individuals migrated, rather than a population-level phenomenon in which out-migrants are continually replaced by in-migrants. Recent studies have invariably concluded that while step-migration may have been the predominant means by which migration occurred during periods of industrialisation in the past, it is no longer the process by which movement occurs in modern, post-industrial so- cieties (Plane et al. 2005). This article therefore critically re-evaluates the evidence upon which Ravenstein based his laws. The census. Whereas Ravenstein used the published report of the 1881 census; the present study utilises the complete, indi- vidual-level manuscript census returns from 1851 to 1911. Through an analysis of approximately 160 million lifetime migration paths, this paper draws two important conclusions. First, that most people’s migratory activity tended to be concentrated in a single move – usually upon leaving home – rather than in a series of steps over their lifetimes. This means the census – recording only individuals’ birthplace and location on census night – captures most people’s full migration histories, amplify- ing its value as a source for studying migration in the past. By fi rst identifying the age range in which migration occurred, this article argues that the similarity of the age profi le of migrants to those leaving home suggests they were one-and-the- same process. By then constructing synthetic cohorts and analysing the distances migrated by the population in each census between the mean ages of key lifecycle Comparative Population Studies Vol. 44 (2019): 447-496 (Date of release: 08.06.2020) Federal Institute for Population Research 2020 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2020-13en URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2020-13en0 * This article belongs to a special issue on “Internal Migration as a Driver of Regional Population Change in Europe: Updating Ravenstein”. • Joseph Day448 events – leaving home, leaving service and entering marriage – it is demonstrated that very little migration occurred beyond the fi rst move. This is reiterated in a co- hort analysis which shows very little change in the destinations of migrants be- tween censuses. In order to search for evidence of migration post-marriage, moth- ers’ migration paths are reconstructed from those of their co-resident children. This similarly demonstrates that only a minority of mothers migrated during their child- bearing years with the majority of migration occurring prior to the birth of their fi rst child. This article therefore shows that while 1851-1911 was not a period without mi- gration, nor was it one of constant movement. Rather, England and Wales urbanised because the majority made a considered choice of destination once in their lives. This article therefore demonstrates that migration in steps was the exception rather than the rule and that the individual-level census returns are a valuable source of migration evidence between 1851 and 1911 and deserve far wider use. Keywords: Step-Migration · Internal Migration · England and Wales · Nineteenth Century · Census 1 Introduction In 1771, Joseph Shaw migrated 6 km to the village of Dent from his rural home in Garsdale where he was born in 1748. From there he moved to Kendal in 1776, back to Dent in 1777, before moving to Dolphinholme in 1791, to Milnthorpe in 1794 and fi nally to Preston in 1795 where he remained until his death in 1823. His son Benja- min on the other hand lived in the family home at Dolphinholme where he stayed until he completed his apprenticeship before meeting his future wife in Lancaster while looking for work, before settling in Preston. There is no doubt that although Joseph, who migrated in steps from the countryside to his fi nal – urban – destina- tion, had the more interesting migration history, this paper will argue that it was in fact Benjamin whose experience – though less interesting – was more common (Crosby 1991). Since Ravenstein fi rst suggested the notion that migration proceeds in steps in his seminal 1885 and 1889 papers on migration, the step-migration hypothesis has been widely accepted in the literature. Ravenstein (1885) characterised the pro- cess as when “…the inhabitants of the country immediately surrounding a town of rapid growth fl ock into it; the gaps thus left in the rural population are fi lled up by migrants from more remote districts, until the attractive force of one of our rapidly growing cities makes its infl uence felt, step by step, to the most remote corner of the Kingdom.” However, the combined vagueness of Ravenstein’s description and the heterogeneity of the data used to test it have resulted in a plethora of compet- ing – and confl icting – defi nitions. Did Ravenstein mean that individuals migrated up the urban hierarchy throughout their lives or that each “step” – in-migrants fi lling the gaps left by out-migrants – consisted of distinct groups and that step-migration The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 449 was a phenomenon that occurred over generations which could only be observed in the aggregate? Grigg clearly interpreted step-migration to have been the means by which in- dividuals migrated, describing Ravenstein’s hypothesis as one in which “migrants did not proceed directly to their destination but by a series of steps” (Grigg 1977). Conversely, others have described the step-migration hypothesis as one that is more akin to chain-migration in which populations tended towards towns and cit- ies (Champion 2019). But did Ravenstein mean that migrants simply moved nearer towns? Or that migrants moved up the urban hierarchy to progressively larger set- tlements? While the former – spatial stepwise migration – is generally accepted as being Ravenstein’s own conception, others have argued that “hierarchical stepwise migration” where each step represents a progression up the urban hierarchy is a more useful way to conceptualise the process. However, as this latter conceptuali- sation removes the friction of distance inherent to Ravenstein’s defi nition, step-mi- gration now generally refers to moves that are both spatial and hierarchical (Conway 1980). This however does not clarify whether the process of step-migration occurs at the level of the individual, within a single generation – intra-generational step-mi- gration – or at a population level between generations – inter-generational step- migration. Conway (1980) recognised that the catch-all term of “step-migration” has continued to confl ate these two very different processes. In inter-generational step- migration, individuals move from the village to a small town, their children move to larger towns and their children in turn move to cities (Hägerstrand 1957; Pryor 1969, 1975; Skeldon 1977; Harvey/Riddell 1975) At each step, the “gaps” which out-mi- grants left are fi lled by in-migrants coming from further down the urban hierarchy. Intra-generational step-migration by contrast is the process by which an individual migrates to the city from the countryside through a series of intermediate steps. In this conceptualisation, out-migrants are also replaced by in-migrants from further down the urban hierarchy and therefore, both interpretations could be consistent with Ravenstein’s hypothesis as originally described. Of the two however, inter-generational stepwise migration is the most prob- lematic both conceptually and methodologically. Conceptually, inter-generational stepwise migration has variously been described as “replacement migration”, “chain-migration”, “hierarchical migration”, “complex step migration” and “stage migration”, all of which describe a group of out-migrants being replaced by a group of in-migrants. Conway (1980) describes this process as a “stage by stage pattern of aggregate-level migration fl ows through the urban hierarchy or across space to- wards the major urban centers [sic]”. Conway makes the salient point that such a stage-by-stage progression of aggregate population fl ows may not be evidence of the population moving “towards” large towns and cities but rather, may simply be an artefact of an economy’s spatial structure. This is best illustrated by briefl y examining the currents of migration that Ra- venstein had reconstructed from the 1881 census in fi gure 1 and it does appear that migrants fl owed in “waves” towards London for example; from Cornwall to Devon, Devon to Dorset, Dorset to Wiltshire, Wiltshire to Berkshire and Berkshire • Joseph Day450 to London. However, while it has been argued that step-migration presents itself as fl ows of net migration, step-migration is by no means the only – or even the most plausible – interpretation of net migration fl ows (Conway 1980). For example, if – as is conceivable from fi gure 1 – migrants from rural south Cambridgeshire fl ocked to the towns of adjacent north Essex while migrants from south Essex went to neighbouring London, this would appear – in county-level fl ows – as step-migra- tion. However, it is more likely that this simply refl ects regional spatial economic structure if the towns of north Essex offered the best prospects to migrants from south Cambridgeshire given the perceived alternatives while London similarly rep- resented the best opportunities to those from south Essex. The consequence is that a random spatial pattern is erroneously interpreted as one that is ordered and Fig. 1: Ravenstein’s visualisation of migration fl ows Source: Ravenstein (1885) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 451 intentional (Zhao/Hahn 2014). However, potentially random patterns of net popula- tion fl ows could be distinguished from step-migration using longitudinal data. By record-linking migrants across censuses, the extent to which successive genera- tions tended towards progressively larger towns could be quantifi ed. However, as it would it be a considerable undertaking to produce a large enough sample from record-linking the nineteenth-century censuses of England and Wales to test this, this is not attempted here. It is therefore most conceptually satisfying to interpret Ravenstein’s step-migra- tion hypothesis as the “process of human spatial behaviour in which individuals or families embark on a migration path of acculturation which gradually takes them, by way of intermediate steps, from a traditional rural environment to the modern-urban environment” (Conway 1980; Hudson 1972; Ravenstein 1885, 1889). While this arti- cle interprets step-migration as a phenomenon which occurs at the individual-level for conceptual and methodological reasons, it is not an intellectual history of the concept. Indeed, it does not intrinsically matter which defi nition is “correct”. What matters is that multiple studies have interpreted step-migration as the process by which individuals progressively moved from the countryside to the towns and cities throughout their lifetime, and this defi nition has ramifi cations for the 1851-1911 cen- suses as a source of evidence for migration data (Anderson 1971; Gwynne/Sill 1976; Holderness 1970; Llewellyn-Smith 1902; Mageean/Pryce 1982; Plane et al. 2005; Pooley/D’Cruze 1994; Saville 1957; Smith 1951; Withers/Watson 1991). Indeed, as the census only recorded birthplace and location on census night, it misses any migratory “steps” that occurred in between. The census would not only then fail to accurately reconstruct individuals’ migration paths, but any attempt to identify the determinants of migration between individuals’ place of birth and place of resi- dence would be artifi cial if no such move actually occurred. As the step-migration hypothesis casts doubt on the census as a source for patterns of migration, the hypothesis itself warrants rigorous testing (Hinde 2004). Although previous studies, either employing the aggregated published census reports or small samples drawn from the manuscript census returns have found little evidence of the process, the step-migration hypothesis has remained a touch- stone for the analysis of migration in the past (Anderson 1971; Gwynne/Sill 1976; Holderness 1970; Llewellyn-Smith 1902; Mageean/Pryce 1982; Plane et al. 2005; Pooley/D’Cruze 1994; Saville 1957; Smith 1951; Withers/Watson 1991). As Grigg (1977) noted that “nineteenth-century migration will not be properly understood until the enumerators’ schedules for the century have been analysed” the present article utilises the complete, individual-level census returns for the years 1851-1861 and 1881-1911 – the 1871 returns are currently unavailable – to test the “step-by- step” hypothesis thanks to the I-CeM (Integrated Census Microdata) project (Schür- er 2019). However, that this paper fi nds no evidence of intra-generational step-migration has two signifi cant implications. First, it goes against the received wisdom that step- migration was the process by which Britain urbanised in the nineteenth century (Plane et al. 2005). Second – and perhaps more signifi cantly – it rebuts the assertion implicit to step-migration that lifetime migration paths taken from the census fails to • Joseph Day452 record the numerous intermediate moves which the step-migration hypothesis as- sumes them to have made (Hinde 2004). The argument goes that, if migrants moved several times between their place of birth and their enumerated place of residence on census night, any attempt to causally connect the determinants of migrating with the socio-economic context of the two locations would be to incorrectly imply the transfer occurred in a single move. It also assumes that the socio-economic context as reconstructed from the CEBs was an accurate refl ection of the circumstances in which the move occurred, even though the move might have occurred years prior to the census being taken (Hinde 2004). This paper demonstrates that these reservations are misplaced. The majority of the population made only a single major move in their lives upon leaving either the parental home or – in the case of males born where farm service still predominated – upon leaving service. This makes it perfectly plausible to assume that individu- als’ place of residence on census night is an adequate approximation of their fi rst destination upon leaving the parental home – as proxied by their place of birth – as well as infer a causal relationship between the socio-economic contexts of an in- dividuals’ place of birth and place of enumeration on census night. Therefore, by estimating the ages at which migrants both left home and left service, it is possible to estimate the age groups that had likely only left the parental home recently prior to census night. By then analysing the extent to which the destinations of differ- ent cohorts changed over time – as well as mothers’ whose migration paths are reconstructed from the birthplaces of their co-resident children – this article dem- onstrates that individuals’ place of birth and place of enumeration on census night were most likely connected by a single move, a move which the census captures. Therefore, although this paper leaves room for the possibility that step-migration was a process of population transfers toward towns and cities at the aggregate level, it demonstrates fi rst and foremost that it decidedly was not a phenomenon that operated at the individual-level. This paper therefore represents a step towards restoring historians’ faith in the nineteenth-century censuses as a source for under- standing the determinants of British urbanisation more fully. 2 Data and methods By defi ning step-migration as the process by which individuals migrate up the urban hierarchy in short, progressive steps does at least have the advantage of making the process one that is readily identifi able, and which could exhibit itself in one of two ways. Either it will present as an increase in the proportion of the population that become resident in larger and larger settlements over time – the “hierarchical stepwise migration” – as illustrated in fi gure 2 in which migrants move up the urban hierarchy, with most moving to the next level, or it will present spatially as migrants move towards towns and into their commuter belts, if not necessarily into the urban settlements themselves. Ideally, individuals would be tracked across the censuses for evidence of mi- gration throughout their lifetimes. However, as the Integrated Census Microdata The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 453 (I-CeM) on which this paper is based is not record-linked, the population cannot be tracked directly over time (Schürer 2019). Substituting for this, three distinct methods with which to measure step-migration are used; age-specifi c migration paths, cohort analysis and pseudo-longitudinal analysis. Firstly, age-specifi c migra- tion produces synthetic cohorts in which the age distribution of the population is treated as if it were a single cohort passing through time. This method suggests that most migrants were not making several progressive moves up the urban hi- erarchy over the life-course but were instead making a single move upon leaving home or – in the male case where farm service still predominated – upon leaving service. Secondly, a cohort analysis that traces the cohort which had just left home in one census across subsequent censuses similarly demonstrates that there was very little change in the proportion that had moved “up” the urban hierarchy be- yond the location they had migrated to upon leaving the parental home. Finally, a pseudo-longitudinal analysis was conducted which reconstructs the migration paths of mothers through the birthplaces of their co-resident children. This analysis again corroborates the fi ndings of the fi rst two methods, showing that most migra- tory activity occurred prior to the birth of the eldest child, rather than continuing throughout the life-course, gradually moving up the urban hierarchy. Using these methods, the intra-generational interpretation of step-migration should no longer be considered a “law”. (In addition to the present study see: Plane et al. 2005; An- derson 1971; Mills/Schürer 1996). Fig. 2: A Ravenstein-style migration system Source: Plane et al. (2005) • Joseph Day454 In order to analyse migration using census material, both individuals’ birthplace and place of residence on census night must be matched to a GIS (Geographical Information System) and the urban hierarchy must be defi ned. While the methodol- ogy adopted to match individuals’ place of birth as transcribed to a GIS will be com- prehensively detailed in a forthcoming article, it is worth briefl y restating the meth- od here. Firstly, birthplace information in the original manuscript census returns was transcribed as text strings in the form PARISH / TOWN | COUNTY | COUNTRY in line with the original census instructions, with each fi eld being completed with as much – or as little – information as originally recorded. Matching these strings to the GIS was complicated by ambiguities in the birthplace strings; chiefl y misspell- ings, non-existent places, e.g. ABBOTS LANGLEY | STAFFORDSHIRE | [BLANK] or strings that could refer to multiple places, e.g. NEWTON | CAMBRIDGESHIRE | [BLANK]. Despite errors and ambiguities, the core principle of the matching process was to believe that the birthplace individuals provided – however ambiguous – was a meaningful one. Consequently, in order to match with a known location, the origi- nal birthplace string was changed as little as possible. For example, if an individual gave simply LONDON | [BLANK] | [BLANK] as their place of birth or NEWTON | CAMBRIDGESHIRE | [BLANK] individuals were matched to all the parishes to which they may have been referring. In these cases, all the parishes that were considered part of London, and all the parishes in Cambridgeshire which included a settlement called “Newton”, respectively. The algorithm matching birthplace strings to a GIS is designed to fi nd the short- est known place name that matches the most characters in each word in the PAR- ISH / TOWN part of the birthplace string, with the fewest redundant characters. For example, S PANCRAS | LONDON | [BLANK] matches to both Pancras, Devon and St Pancras, London on seven characters, “PANCRAS”, with one redundant charac- ter, “S”. As “Pancras” is shorter than “St Pancras”, the fi rst parse of the algorithm matches the string to Pancras, Devon. In pre-processing, all strings were matched to a standardised version of the county as stated in the birthplace string. As the “stated” county for the string S PANCRAS | LONDON | [BLANK] was London, a sec- ond parse searches for the best match closer to London than Devon, in both London and counties adjacent to it. The condition of matching to the shortest place name is removed in the second parse, so although S PANCRAS matches both Pancras, Devon and St Pancras, London on seven characters with one redundant character, St Pancras, London is closer to the “stated” county than Pancras, Devon. The sec- ond parse therefore reallocates the match to St Pancras, London. Similarly, ABBOTS LANGLEY | STAFFORDSHIRE | [BLANK] is matched to Abbots Langley, Hertford- shire rather than Abbots Bromley, Staffordshire. Even though Abbots Bromley is the best match either in or adjacent to the county stated, it matches just six characters with seven redundant characters compared to Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire which matches on thirteen characters with zero redundant characters. The results of this algorithm is compared to the results of one based on Levenshtein Distances, which match a string to a known place name that requires the fewest “edits” to the string to produce a match (Schürer et al. 2015). Where there is a confl ict between the places The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 455 which the two methods have matched a string to, precedence is given to the place that is closest to the county as stated in the string. As already outlined, the core principle underlying the matching process is the as- sumption that all birthplaces were intended to be meaningful. Therefore, individuals are matched to all the parishes to which they may have been referring. For example, those whose birthplace string was APPLEDORE | [BLANK] | [BLANK] were matched to Appledore in both Kent and Devon. However, if they were resident in Kent they were unlikely to have been born in Devon. Therefore, rather than being matched to all possible birthplaces, individuals were matched to the parish which was the shortest distance from their parish of residence. In order to identify migration up and down the urban hierarchy, towns and cities were ordered by size and classifi ed into quintiles, grouping together urban settle- ments which combine to form 20 percent of the urban population of England and Wales outside of London. A GIS of these towns and cities was created from the dataset published by Smith et al. (2018) and spatially matched to individuals’ parish of birth. London is categorised separately at the top of the urban hierarchy owing to its size. The number of towns and cities in each quintile and the labels used to describe them is summarised in table 1 and follow those in Plane et al. (2005). Mic- ropolitans represent the smallest urban settlements and are therefore on the lowest rung of the urban hierarchy while London is at the top with “Major Metropolitans” just below it. The colour codes of each metropolitan area correspond to the colours in the appendix and indicates which urban classifi cation each settlement had been allocated and its population in each census year. As the manuscript census returns are cross-sectional, the following sections an- alyse migration at key life events; leaving home, leaving service and marriage. Each of the following sections shows that the evidence is not consistent with the step- migration thesis. Firstly, migrants had a similar age profi le to those leaving home, suggesting that the two events were part of the same process, with most migratory activity concentrated in early adulthood rather than spread over the lifecycle as migrants moved up the urban hierarchy. Secondly, rural migration to the towns and Tab. 1: Number of settlements in each urban classifi cation, England and Wales 1851-1911 Urban classifi cation 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Major Metropolitan 3 3 4 4 4 5 AAA Metropolitan 9 10 13 13 14 17 AA Metropolitan 19 22 33 33 37 43 A Metropolitan 39 46 66 70 86 100 MicropolitanMicropolitan 81 90 146 187 224 238 Total towns and cities 150 170 261 306 364 402 Source: Author’s calculations using data from Smith et al. 2018 • Joseph Day456 cities is analysed and the extent to which servitude represented a migratory “step” migration is examined. Here, whereas rural-born male farm servants only moved to the towns and cities upon leaving service, rural-born females tended to enter urban domestic service. However, rather than using the town in which they worked as stepping-stones to larger, more distant towns, they largely stayed there upon leav- ing service. Thirdly, the extent to which the urban-born population moved up the urban hierarchy is considered. Here the evidence suggests that migrants moving up the urban hierarchy were outweighed by the number moving down, resulting in no net upward migration amongst the urban-born. The last section conducts a pseudo- longitudinal analysis by tracking mothers’ migration paths through the birthplaces of her co-resident children. This shows that the moves which occurred prior to the birth of the eldest co-resident child were the most signifi cant. When combined with the rest of the evidence presented in this article, individuals’ migration paths were clearly not stepwise, but rather, were concentrated in their fi rst, major move. 3 Age profi le of migrants Although the theory of step-migration has garnered widespread acceptance, it makes little sense in light of what else is known about the demographic history of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century England and Wales. Firstly, as Raven- stein (1876) fi rst observed and others have replicated, the young and single were the most migratory. When this is put into the context of the age at leaving home, leaving service and then marriage, it represents a very small timeframe for step- migration and the several moves towards ever-larger towns and cities to occur. Ta- ble 2 shows the ages of leaving home, leaving service and marriage for males and females across England and Wales between 1851 and 1911 (Day 2018. See also: Hajnal 1953; Schürer 1989, 2003). This table shows that the gap between leaving home and marriage shrank from around 7.5 years to 6.5 years in the period between 1851 and 1911, despite a rising Tab. 2: Mean ages of key lifecycle transitions, England and Wales, 1851-1911 Year Age at Leaving Home Age at Leaving Service Age at Marriage Male Female Male Female Male Female 1851 19.2 17.8 22.5 22.9 26.7 25.7 1861 19.2 17.7 21.9 22.5 26.2 25.3 1871 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1881 20.1 18.0 22.2 22.6 26.4 25.2 1891 20.5 18.6 22.7 23.1 26.9 25.8 1901 21.1 19.3 23.1 23.5 27.2 26.2 1911 21.6 19.7 23.8 23.7 27.6 26.3 Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 457 age at marriage as the age at leaving home increased by approximately two years for females and two and a half years for males, squeezing the mean number of years spent in service by around a year in both the male and female case. There- fore, if – as has already been demonstrated in countless studies – young, unmarried men and women were by far the most migratory, the window of time they had to migrate up the urban hierarchy between leaving home and marriage was relatively limited (Bowley 1914; Hill 1925; Hollingsworth 1970; Llewellyn-Smith 1902; Raven- stein 1876). In order to demonstrate that migration was indeed compressed into a relatively narrow age window – largely between the ages of 15 and 24 – this article extends the method proposed by Hinde (2004) and shows that migratory activity peaked in the 15-24 year-old age group throughout the period between 1851 and 1911 in England and Wales. Following the logic that Net Migration = (Population(t+1) − Popula- tiont) − Births − Deaths), mortality rates nMx and survival probabilities nPx are cal- culated in order to estimate intercensal age-specifi c net migration rates (Newell 1988; Hinde 1998). Intercensal net migration fi gures were not calculated for the pe- riods 1861-1871 or 1871-1881 as the 1871 mortality fi gures in the Registrar-General’s Decennial Supplements did not distinguish between male and female deaths. The age- and sex-specifi c mortality rates across approximately 600 registrations dis- tricts (RDs) between 1851 and 1911 were then used to estimate the population that survived the intervening decade in each of the approximately 2,000 registration sub-districts (RSDs) into which the RDs were sub-divided. Each parish is a further sub-division of each RSD. Details of the spatial units in which offi cial statistics were collected and their relationship to one another are fully described in Satchell (2011). This approach narrows the window in which migration must have occurred to a ten-year period. In order to analyse the age groups in which migratory activity was concentrated, it would be useful to calculate the population turnover. This however requires being able to calculate the number of both in-migrants and out-migrants in each age group in each decade which is not possible from either the published census reports or the manuscript census returns. Therefore, the usual formula for population turnover could not be used (Dennett/Stillwell 2008), and a “pseudo” measure of population turnover is used instead. In the formula below, Di αs, Oi αs and Pi αs respectively, represent in-migration, out-migration and population of those in age group α and sex group s in area i. In this case, each area i represents each RSD. However, as the absolute number of in- and out-migrants in each age group is unknown, the number of net in- and out-migrants must substitute. Therefore, for each age group, RSDs were classifi ed according to whether there were net in- migrants or net out-migrants. For each age group in each intercensal period, the total net in- and out-migrants across the RSDs substitute for the absolute number of in- and out-migrants – Di αs and Oi αs respectively – and are divided by the total population of that age group – Pi αs – in much the same way as the formula above. • Joseph Day458 Between 1881 and 1890, 327 of the 2,110 RSDs made a net gain of 175,807 males aged 20-29 while 1,783 RSDs made a net loss of 450,755 males in the same age bracket of a total population of 2,318,531. The discrepancy between the two fi gures is largely explained by net emigration (Baines 1986). Therefore; or more precisely, 270.2 per thousand. However, as fi gure 3 underestimates actual population turnover, they must be interpreted as being indicative only of migrants’ age structure for two reasons. Firstly, as in- and out-migration is calculated from net migration fi gures, the absolute number of both in- and out-migrants is likely to be higher. Secondly, as only those that moved between RSDs are counted as migrants, those that migrated within an RSD are not included in these fi gures. Despite these shortcomings, and despite clear differences in the volume of mi- gratory activity between males and females and signifi cant changes over time, fi g- ure 3 demonstrates that there was an extremely clear age profi le to migratory ac- tivity. Although male migration appears to have been concentrated in a far shorter age range compared to the female experience – whose migratory activity was a little more spread out over the age range – for both males and females, the 15-24 age group emerges as the age group in which most migration occurs. When this is compared to the age profi le at which the population either leaving the parental home or leaving service, it appears to exhibit an extremely similar age profi le which suggests that the process of leaving home and migrating were part of one-and-the- same process. Figure 4 shows the year-on-year increase in the age-specifi c proportion of the population that were either no longer in the parental home or no longer in service. In 1881 for example, 48 percent of 21 year-old males had exited home or service com- pared to 56 percent of 22 year-olds. This is graphed as an 8 percent increase in the proportion leaving home at the age of 22. Like fi gure 3, there are some noteworthy differences between the male and female experience. The female process of leav- ing home exhibits a rapid “take-off” from the age of 15 whereas the male process did not. However, what is clear is that the central 50 percent of the population – in all census years – were leaving home or service and becoming independent between the approximate ages of 20 and 29; the same age group in which migratory activity was concentrated. Therefore, although fi gure 3 shows that migratory activity did not solely occur in the 20-29 year age group, fi gure 4 shows that nor did the leaving home process. Rather, both sets of graphs illustrate that the age profi le of the leav- ing home process was largely coincident with the age profi le of migration. Whereas fi gure 3 might previously have been interpreted as evidence that migration contin- ued throughout the lifecycle – in support of the step-migration hypothesis – when it is combined with fi gure 4, it is perhaps more convincing to argue that moves later in the lifecycle are evidence of delayed fi rst moves from the parental home rather than multiple moves. This contradicts Llewellyn-Smith (1902), who interpreted a higher average age among migrants to London as being consistent with step-migration theory given that migrants would be older at the point of their fi nal migratory step to the city compared to their fi rst migratory step out of the countryside. While this is consistent with what would be expected if migration were indeed stepwise, in light of the evidence presented here, a more convincing interpretation might he that The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 459 migrants to London were simply delaying a fi rst move and giving themselves more time to save and accumulate the resources necessary for such a move (Williams/ Baláž 2012). This section has argued that if the step-migration hypothesis were true, these multiple steps would need to be completed within a relatively small window, contra- Fig. 3: Age-specifi c pseudo population turnover, England and Wales 1851-1911 Population turnover (migrants per '000) 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Age (years) 1851-1861 1881-1891 1891-1901 1901-1911 Population turnover (migrants per '000) 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Age (years) 1851-1861 1881-1891 1891-1901 1901-1911 Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) Male Female • Joseph Day460 dicting not only the evidence presented here and elsewhere, but also Ravenstein’s “law” of migration that the young and unmarried that were the most migratory (Ra- venstein 1876). Instead, leaving the parental home appears to have been the princi- pal mechanism by which migration occurred, and that moves later in life are more likely to have been the product of leaving home later, rather than multiple stepwise % year-on-year increase 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Age (years) 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) Fig. 4: Year-on-year increase in % leaving home or service England and Wales, 1851-1911 % year-on-year increase 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Age (years) 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Male Female The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 461 moves. In order to clarify this process further, the remaining sections examine the extent to which other key life events; lifecycle service and marriage, represented “steps” in the step-migration hypothesis and whether any moves that were taken subsequent to leaving home were indeed stepwise moves up the urban hierarchy. The next section considers whether entering lifecycle service represented a fi rst mi- gratory “step” up the urban hierarchy for male and female migrants or can instead be better described as “circulating” migration (Kussmaul 1981). 4 Leaving home and entering service: a fi rst “step”? Before analysing age-specifi c migration paths, it is useful to acknowledge that in large parts of England and Wales, lifecycle service was an important institution; men predominantly entering farm service while women mainly went into domestic service. Therefore, did entering service represent the fi rst “step” in migrants’ jour- neys up the urban hierarchy? Firstly, it is necessary to identify the population for whom service represented the “modal” experience upon leaving the parental home. Figures 5 and 6 show the proportion of males in 1851 and 1911 that had entered ser- vice upon leaving home. This is estimated by fi rst calculating the male and female mean age at leaving home in each RSD in each census year (Day 2018). Those that were aged within two years of the mean age at leaving home and were not resident with parents approximate the population that had likely left home shortly before census night. The proportion of this group that were servants therefore serves as an estimate of the likelihood of entering service upon leaving home. Although it is evident in the male case that the institution of service was in ter- minal decline throughout the second half of the nineteenth century and had all but disappeared from the south-east by 1911, farm service still played an important – if diminished – role in the rural labour market across Wales, the South West of Eng- land, Lincolnshire, the North and East Yorkshire Ridings and Cumberland in 1911. In the female case in fi gures 7 and 8, service still predominated across England and Wales throughout the period. Despite straw-plaiting and lace-making in the Home Counties providing women with an alternative to domestic service until the industry was killed off by foreign competition, while textile employment in the north-west similarly gave women an alternative to lifecycle service, domestic service remained the principal route out of the parental home in nineteenth-century England and Wales (You 2020). If leaving home was the fi rst step of many, one would expect evidence of ad- ditional moves. However, as the dataset used here is not record-linked and it is not possible to reconstruct individuals’ migration paths directly, fi gure 9 shows the av- erage distances migrated by the time individuals had left home, left service or had married. Like fi gures 5-8, this has been estimated by calculating the mean age at leaving home, leaving service and entering marriage – as in table 2 – for each RSD in each census year. Only those that were aged within two years of the average age of leaving home/service/marriage and were not at home or in service were included in the measure. This was so it could be plausibly inferred they had only left home/ • Joseph Day462 left service/entered marriage recently prior to the census being taken and so were unlikely to have made any intermediate steps between birth and census night. Fig- ure 9 distinguishes between the distances travelled upon leaving home by those that entered service and those that did not. The “farm service” and “non-service” districts in fi gure 9 are defi ned as those RSDs in which more/less than half of males became servants upon leaving home using the same methodology as fi gures 5-8, as males that entered service were overwhelmingly farm servants and the manuscript census returns rarely identify agricultural servants specifi cally. The differences are striking. Males that left home Fig. 5: Estimated % of males entering service upon leaving home, England and Wales 1851 % Intervals < 5% 5% to 15% 15% to 25% 25% to 35% 35% to 45% 45% to 55% 55% to 65% 65% to 75% 75% to 85% 85% to 95% > 95% Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 463 to enter farm service were far and away the least migratory group, moving on aver- age around 15 km from the parental home to enter service which is in stark contrast to the distance migrated by those that did not enter service. Those that left home and did not enter service had migrated – on average – around the same distances as by the age at marriage, implying that the majority of those not entering service did not migrate beyond the move made at leaving home. Once individuals left service however, the distances migrated increased dramatically. Although the population at the age of leaving service also includes those that had never been in service; as this is not a record-linked dataset it is not possible to Fig. 6: Estimated % of males entering service upon leaving home, England and Wales 1911 % Intervals < 5% 5% to 15% 15% to 25% 25% to 35% 35% to 45% 45% to 55% 55% to 65% 65% to 75% 75% to 85% 85% to 95% > 95% Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day464 determine whether individuals had ever been servants prior to census night, the im- plication is clear. Farm service simply delayed the moment in the lifecycle at which migration occurred rather than deterring it completely. Like those that had not en- tered service however, former farm servants tended not to migrate any further be- tween leaving service and entering marriage, indeed the average distance migrated from individuals’ birthplaces actually went down slightly between leaving service and marriage. This suggests that migrants were not moving in steps – making a series of small migratory steps towards ever-larger settlements at each lifecycle stage – but instead that they were making a single move at the point of either leaving Fig. 7: Estimated % of females entering service upon leaving home, England and Wales 1851 % Intervals < 5% 5% to 15% 15% to 25% 25% to 35% 35% to 45% 45% to 55% 55% to 65% 65% to 75% 75% to 85% 85% to 95% > 95% Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 465 home or leaving service. However, fi gure 9 also shows that there was at least some movement between leaving home and marriage in the female case. For most males on the other hand, the average distance migrated hardly increased between leaving home and marriage; any difference between the two largely being accounted for by farm service. So, was this extra distance migrated by females between leaving home and marriage evidence of step-migration – a substantial proportion of the population moving a relatively short distance up the urban hierarchy – or evidence of a small number becoming more migratory between lifecycle events? Figure 10, however, shows that it was likely to be the latter. It shows that there was a signifi cant Fig. 8: Estimated % of females entering service upon leaving home, England and Wales 1911 % Intervals < 5% 5% to 15% 15% to 25% 25% to 35% 35% to 45% 45% to 55% 55% to 65% 65% to 75% 75% to 85% 85% to 95% > 95% Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day466 decline in the proportion of “non-movers” – those that migrated less than 1 km – between the ages of leaving home and marriage. This suggests that there was not necessarily stepwise migration – which would more likely have expressed itself as drop in the <1 km bracket and a proportional increase in the ≥100 km bracket as mi- grants moving out of one distance interval were replaced by those moving into it in a “wave-like” motion (Redford 1926). Instead, a signifi cant proportion of those that had not moved upon leaving home, suddenly did so upon marriage. Consequently, rather than being evidence of step-migration – moving upon leaving home and then again upon marriage as is implied by fi gure 9, fi gure 10 shows that, although the majority moved upon leaving either home or farm service, a minority made no sig- nifi cant move at either of these milestones, instead delaying any migration until they were married. Therefore, rather than being evidence of multiple “stepwise” moves, closer scrutiny suggests the fi rst move was simply delayed. Whereas fi gure 10 suggests that fi gure 9 was evidence of a small proportion mi- grating between leaving home and marriage rather than evidence of a more wide- spread secondary move, fi gure 11 demonstrates that whatever the mechanism, it did not translate into migration up the urban hierarchy. Rather, the type of settlement they were in when they left home was the same type of settlement they were likely to be in upon getting married. Although fi gure 11 could be masking a signifi cant vol- ume of movement up and down the urban hierarchy between lifecycle events, the Fig. 9: Mean distance (km) migrated by the rural-born population at each lifecycle stage, England and Wales 1851-1911 Distance (km) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 Female Male Female Male Non-Service Farm Service Exit home (Enter service) Exit home (Not enter service) Exit service Marriage Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 467 point remains that there is no evidence of step-migration in the aggregate. Indeed, if migrants had moved in a stepwise fashion, one would have expected an ever-larg- er proportion to be located in ever larger settlements at each successive lifecycle stage. This was evidently not the case; with the exception of males that move to the towns upon leaving service rather than leaving home. Clearly then, a cross-sectional analysis of the data suggests that migrants tended to make a single move between leaving home and marriage. While males that en- tered farm service delayed their move to the towns and cities, those that did not made their primary move upon leaving home, and did not migrate again. Similarly, a large proportion of females that did not enter service upon leaving home appear to have delayed migrating until marriage – fi gure 10 indicates that 20-30 percent between 1851 and 1911 had migrated less than 1 km from their birthplace upon leaving home, but dropped to half this by the time they married. While the evidence presented shows no evidence of step-migration, a cross-sectional study assumes that different cohorts had comparable experiences. It is useful therefore to try and follow the destinations of each cohort through the censuses in fi gure 12. Figure 12 removes the effect of urbanisation infl ating the number of rural-urban migrants over time, towns and cities are defi ned by their boundaries as they existed in 1911 throughout the period 1851-1911. Figure 12 therefore includes only those that were neither in service nor co-resident with their parents and who were aged within two years of the mean age at leaving service for their RSD of birth. For example, if the Fig. 10: Distances migrated by rural-born females leaving home (not into service) vs. marriage, England and Wales 1851-1911 % of migrants 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 < 1 1- 5 5- 10 10 -2 0 30 -4 0 40 -6 0 60 -8 0 80 -1 00 1 00 < 1 1- 5 5- 10 10 -2 0 30 -4 0 40 -6 0 60 -8 0 80 -1 00 1 00 < 1 1- 5 5- 10 10 -2 0 30 -4 0 40 -6 0 60 -8 0 80 -1 00 1 00 < 1 1- 5 5- 10 10 -2 0 30 -4 0 40 -6 0 60 -8 0 80 -1 00 1 00 < 1 1- 5 5- 10 10 -2 0 30 -4 0 40 -6 0 60 -8 0 80 -1 00 1 00 < 1 1- 5 5- 10 10 -2 0 30 -4 0 40 -6 0 60 -8 0 80 -1 00 1 00 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Exit home (not enter service) Marriage Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day468 mean age of males leaving service in 1851 was 23, those that were neither at home nor in service between the ages of 21 and 25 in 1851 are included and form the same cohort as those aged 31 to 35 in 1861 that were similarly neither at home nor in service. Broadly, the picture in fi gure 12 is one of notable similarity with that shown in fi gure 11. Overall, there was very little change between the proportions of each co- hort found in each settlement type between censuses which suggests a remarkable level of stability, confi rming the impression made in fi gures 9-11 that individuals tended to migrate only once in their lifetime. However, although a relatively minor increase; the proportion of the 1851 and 1861 female cohort migrating to a town or city increases from 30.0 percent to 41.7 percent between 1851 and 1911 and from 33.7 percent to 44.9 percent between 1861 and 1911 respectively. While most other changes in the period can be reasonably attributed to random fl uctuations, these increases necessitate a little explication. Firstly, it is worth noting that no one type of urban settlement appears to have grown at the expense of another, but rather towns and cities from across the urban hierarchy attracted an ever-larger proportion of migrants from the countryside. If individuals’ migration paths were stepwise, one would expect larger towns to grow disproportionately faster than towns lower down the urban hierarchy. However, even if this pattern were a function of step-migration – migrants from the country- side relocating to a micropolitan and then those they displaced migrating further up the urban hierarchy and so on – an increase from 30 percent to 40 percent of the Fig. 11: Destinations of the rural-born at each lifecycle stage, England and Wales, 1851-1911 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t h o m e (E nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t h o m e (n o t e nt er s er vi ce ) E xi t s er vi ce M ar ri ag e 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Female Male Rural Micropolitan A Metropolitan AA Metropolitan AAA Metropolitan Major Metropolitan London Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 469 rural-born population migrating to towns represents only a quarter of all rural-urban migrants. The remaining three-quarters likely having not migrated beyond the mo- ment they left home. Secondly, around half of each cohort were still resident with their parents when aged at the “mean” age of leaving home. Fast-forward ten years to the next cen- sus and around 85 percent had left home. Although unavoidable in the absence of record-linked data, this age group now includes many that were not included in the fi rst cohort. If the two groups of “early” and “late” leavers had differing propensi- ties to migrate to towns and cities, one would expect it would present itself in the manner shown in fi gure 12. However, as this dataset is not record-linked, it is not possible to identify the early and late leavers and their characteristics individually; otherwise the theory that rural-born females were more likely to migrate to towns and cities the later they left the parental home, could be tested. For the moment then, it does seem a plausible deduction, especially as it accords with the evidence presented in fi gures 3-4 which shows a remarkable congruence between the age profi les of migration with those of leaving home. This suggested that migration in later life was not necessarily evidence of step-migration, but perhaps a delayed exit from home instead. This section has argued that rural migrants – except males entering farm service – tended to go to towns and cities upon leaving home and that most migrants re- mained in the same town or city that they fi rst migrated to (Gritt 2000). In addition, Fig. 12: Destinations of the rural-born population by cohorts upon leaving service in each census year, England and Wales 1851-1911 (Extent of towns/cities held constant throughout period at 1911 boundaries) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 91 19 01 19 11 19 01 19 11 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 91 19 01 19 11 19 01 19 11 1851 cohort 1861 cohort 1881 cohort 1891 cohort 1901 cohort 1851 cohort 1861 cohort 1881 cohort 1891 cohort 1901 cohort Female Male Rural Micropolitan A Metropolitan AA Metropolitan AAA Metropolitan Major Metropolitan London Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day470 no group appears to have migrated up the urban hierarchy beyond their fi rst move. So, if rural-born migrants did not tend to migrate in steps, were the urban-born pop- ulation more likely to continue moving “up” the urban hierarchy throughout their lifetime? 5 Urban-born migrants The methodology used to identify the cohort in fi gure 12 is repeated in fi gure 13, which shows the proportion of the urban-born population that had either stayed in their hometown, moved to a town or city in the same urban classifi cation or had moved “up” or “down” the urban hierarchy. London-born migrants are excluded as they were at the top of the urban hierarchy and could therefore not move either “up” or “across”. It is striking that the pattern in in fi gure 13 mirrors that of fi gure 12. Like the increase in the proportion of the 1851 and 1861 cohorts of migrating to towns and cities shown in fi gure 12 – a probable consequence of differing propensities between early and late leavers to migrate to towns and cities – the 1851 and 1861 urban-born cohorts similarly became marginally more likely to have moved up the urban hierarchy by 1881; from around 11 percent to 17 percent of the total. However, this should not distract from the principal observation that the modal experience was to stay in the same settlement in which one was born. It is also of note that each cohort became increasingly likely to move down the urban hierar- chy over time. From 1851-1911 the urban-born population moving down the urban hierarchy increased from 22 percent to 32 percent of the total. Although a relatively modest increase, it means that in the aggregate, the number migrating down the ur- ban hierarchy always exceeded those migrating up. In terms of stepwise migration then, it appears that it was neither spatial – transferring individuals between settle- ments – nor hierarchically pushing the population up the urban hierarchy. Given that fi gure 13 shows very little migration between census years in each cohort, the move migrants made upon leaving home must have been the most sig- nifi cant move which individuals made in their lifetime. Figure 14 clarifi es this and shows very little change in the proportion of the population that had migrated up or down the urban hierarchy between the mean ages of the key lifecycle events; leaving home, leaving service and entering marriage, implying that the overwhelm- ing majority of the moves that did occur, occurred upon leaving home. Like fi gure 13, fi gure 14 shows remarkable stability in the proportions of the population found in each settlement type across the three lifecycle stages, suggesting that for the majority, leaving the parental home was their sole migratory move. However, the observations made in both fi gures 13 and 14 which require greater exposition is the number of moves down the urban hierarchy, consistently outnumbering those moving up. Of these downward moves, around 60 percent of them were to rural parishes and the distances travelled by these migrants tended to be shorter than the distances travelled by the upwardly mobile as is shown in fi gure 15. Although the differences between distances travelled by upward and down- wardly mobile migrants narrowed between 1851 and 1911 as urbanisation shrank The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 471 Fig. 13: Proportion of the urban-born population migrating across the urban hierarchy by cohorts upon leaving service in each census year, England and Wales 1851-1911 (Extent of towns/cities held constant throughout period at 1911 boundaries) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 91 19 01 19 11 19 01 19 11 18 51 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 61 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 81 18 91 19 01 19 11 18 91 19 01 19 11 19 01 19 11 1851 cohort 1861 cohort 1881 cohort 1891 cohort 1901 cohort 1851 cohort 1861 cohort 1881 cohort 1891 cohort 1901 cohort Female Male Downward move Same urban classification Same town/city Upward move Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) Fig. 14: Proportion of the urban-born population migrating across the urban hierarchy by lifecycle stage, England and Wales 1851-1911 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e E xi t H o m e E xi t S er vi ce M ar ri ag e Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Downward move Same urban classification Same town/city Upward move Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day472 the distances necessary to travel to towns and cities, half of the urban-born migrat- ing down the urban hierarchy travelled less than 30 km in 1851, the median distance travelled by those moving up being 90 km. In a step-migration model, moves up the urban hierarchy are interpreted as upward social mobility in the absence of record- linked data. However, were migrants being positively or negatively selected (Long 2005) depending on whether they moved up or down the urban hierarchy? If highly skilled migrants were moving down the urban hierarchy to escape urban disameni- ties or take a promotion – clergymen migrating to the countryside to become parish priests for example – it would be disingenuous to describe them as downwardly mo- bile, as it would have represented a gainful move. Figure 16 however, demonstrates that this was not the case, by comparing HiS-CAM scores of individuals migrating both up and down the urban hierarchy by the distance migrated. HiS-CAM scores measure social interaction and as such, are used as a means to stratify occupations from the highest to the lowest social class. As HiS-CAM is measured on a continuous scale, it is a useful means to quickly identify the relationship between skilled/unskilled occupations and migration. The original scales were constructed from the social interactions derived from mar- riage registers in Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden; the “distance” between occupations being estimated from the number of butchers that married the daughters of bakers, for example. These distances were transformed and standardised onto a hierarchical scale between 0 and 100 where Fig. 15: Cumulative distance (km) migrated by urban-born migrants moving up/ down the urban hierarchy, England and Wales 1851-1911 % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 Distance (km) Downward move (1851) Upward move (1851) Downward move (1911) Upward move (1911) Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 473 50 was the mean. The scales used on the 1851 and 1911 census data in fi gure 16 are the “early” and “late” series respectively, as when these scales are applied to individuals’ occupations, it produced a normal distribution around a mean of 50, indicating that the occupational stratifi cation in England and Wales in this period is captured by these scales (Lambert et al. 2013; Prandy/Bottero 2000; Prandy/Lam- bert 2003; Stewart et al. 1973, 1980; van Leeuwen et al. 2002). The HiS-CAM scores were adjusted further, and fi gure 16 shows the HiS-CAM scores of migrants as a proportion of the HiS-CAM score of those that stayed in their place of birth. There- fore, scores above/below 1 show migrants were more/less skilled than average in their RSD of birth. However, as the age profi le of migrants has been shown to be very different to the population at large, HiS-CAM scores were age-standardised to remove the distorting effect of age. Figure 16 shows that migrants moving up the urban hierarchy in both 1851 and 1911 made immediate gains compared to those that remained in their hometown. Those that had moved to a larger town or city just 5 km away had higher HiS-CAM scores than their counterparts who stayed. For men in both 1851 and 1911, migrat- ing 25 km from their place of birth produced a HiS-CAM score that was around 5 percent higher than those still in their hometown. By contrast, men that moved Fig. 16: Age-standardised HiS-CAM scores of male migrants moving up vs. down the urban hierarchy relative to non-migrants, England and Wales 1851-1911 Adjusated HiS-CAM score 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance (km) Downward move (1851) Upward move (1851) Downward move (1911) Upward move (1911) Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019); HIS-CAM for Early Period, 1800 – c.1890 (used for 1851 census data) and HIS-CAM for Late Period, c. 1890 – c.1938 (used for 1911 census data). Version 1.3.1.E/L [http://www.camsis.stir.ac.uk/hiscam, November 2019] • Joseph Day474 less than 20 km down the urban hierarchy had lower HiS-CAM scores than their counterparts that did not leave their place of birth. This suggests that while mi- grants that moved even a short distance to a larger town or city were more skilled, those that moved a short distance down the urban hierarchy – likely to outlying dis- tricts of the conurbation – did not primarily consist of skilled professionals looking to escape urban disamenities, but were instead the less skilled (Williamson 1981). After 20 km, migrants travelling down the urban hierarchy made gains relative to the stayers, although these gains were less than those made by migrants going up the urban hierarchy. Whereas step-migration implies that migration continuously moves individuals up the urban hierarchy given the opportunities in ever-larger towns, fi gure 16 dem- onstrates that individuals migrated wherever there were opportunities, leading to what may have appeared to Anderson (1971) to have been “random” moves. What is clear however is that urbanisation was not a consequence of both rural- and urban- born migrants fl owing up the urban hierarchy like “a cistern of water after the tap has been turned on” as Ravenstein (1889) put it, but a function of the rural-born alone migrating to towns and cities in their fi rst – and often only – move. Although at the national-level, urban-born migrants were making a net move down the urban hierarchy rather than up it, fi gure 17 shows that the propensity to move down was not uniform across the whole of the urban hierarchy. Despite migrants from towns such as Bury St Edmunds having a greater capacity to move up the urban hierarchy compared to migrants from “major metropolitans” such as Manchester – who could only migrate up the urban hierarchy by travelling to Lon- Fig. 17: Proportion of the urban-born population migrating across the urban hierarchy upon leaving service, England and Wales 1851-1911 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Downward move Same urban classification Same town/city Upward move Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 475 don – it is telling that migrants from Bury St Edmunds were still more likely to move down the urban hierarchy rather than up it. Only those from the smallest urban “mi- cropolitan” settlements were more likely to move up the urban hierarchy – 35 per- cent – rather than down – 20 percent. However, if a net move of 15 percent up the urban hierarchy by those that accounted for just 20 percent of the urban population is evidence of step migration, it is scant evidence indeed. This paper has so far utilised age-specifi c and cohort analyses to identify evi- dence of step-migration up to the point of marriage. Therefore, in the fi nal part of this paper, section six reconstructs mothers’ migration paths from the birthplaces of their co-resident children to create a pseudo-longitudinal study to search for evi- dence of step-migration beyond the moment of marriage. 6 Mother’s migration paths As it is not possible to match mothers to children that had left home, it would be misleading to analyse mothers’ migration paths using the birthplaces of her co- resident children if several had already left. It is therefore necessary to identify the cohort most likely to have been co-resident with all her surviving children. Using the 1911 – so-called “fertility” – census (Garrett et al. 2001), fi gure 18 compares the number of co-resident children with the number of children ever born. This shows that the number of children born and the number of children co-resident began to diverge – as children left the parental home – when mothers reached around the age of 41. Therefore, this paper will assume that mothers were still co-resident with all their children when they were aged between 36 and 45 as these ages are within half a standard deviation either side of the peak family size at the mothers’ age of 41. Given that the census is decennial, it also makes sense to select a ten-year age cohort. However, it is necessary to confi rm that this age group is also appropriate for the 1851-1901 censuses. Using the 1851-1901 censuses in fi gure 19 confi rms that each census year fol- lowed an almost identical pattern. The mean number of co-resident children peaks at around 3.75 when mothers were 41 years old in all census years. The 36-45 age group is therefore the most appropriate to identify those mothers most likely to be co-resident with all her children. Figure 20 meanwhile visualises the number of children co-resident with their mother between 1851 and 1911. This shows that the modal number between 1851 and 1891 was three or four, declining to two by 1901. Given that the modal number of children resident with mothers aged 36-45 was three across the period and the mean was 3.9, this paper will only consider the 1,143,013 ever-married mothers aged 36-45 between 1851 and 1911 that were co- resident with three children. First then, table 3 outlines the average distances migrated by mothers in this age group from their own birthplace through the subsequent births of each of their three children through to their place of residence on census night. While the average distance migrated went up over time, individuals’ fi rst move was clearly the most signifi cant. From the 1851 census, individuals’ fi rst move placed them on average • Joseph Day476 25.8 km from their birthplace, rising to 38.9 km using data from the 1911 census. Subsequent moves were only around a quarter of the distance travelled in the fi rst move and when analysed in conjunction with the distances which these moved placed migrants from their origin, these moves could have been circulating ones, Fig. 18: Number of children born to/co-resident with mothers, England and Wales 1911 Number of children 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Mothers' Age (years) Children ever born Co-resident children Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) Tab. 3: Mean distance (km) migrated between mothers’ place of birth and place of residence on census night by way of the birthplaces of her co- resident children, England and Wales 1851-1911 Move Av. distance (km) between moves Av. distance (km) from mothers’ birthplace 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 1 25.8 28.8 34.0 37.5 38.1 38.9 25.8 28.8 34.0 37.5 38.1 38.9 2 7.5 9.3 11.3 11.0 9.8 10.6 27.4 30.8 36.5 39.6 40.0 40.8 3 6.2 7.6 9.4 9.0 8.4 9.7 28.4 32.1 38.2 41.1 41.5 42.4 4 6.9 9.0 10.2 10.5 10.5 11.7 29.3 32.6 39.5 42.5 43.3 43.7 Note: See text for explanation of the sample. Move 1 refers to the move made between a mothers’ own place of birth and the birthplace of her eldest (fi rst) co-resident child. Move 2 is the move between the fi rst and second child and move 3 the move between her sec- ond and third child. Move 4 refers to the move that mothers made from the birthplace of her third child to her place of residence as reported on census night. Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 477 moving individuals within a locale rather than towards larger and larger settlements in a stepwise fashion (Kussmaul 1981). For example, in 1891, mothers’ fourth move placed them just 5 km further from their parental home than they were at the birth of their fi rst child, even though be- tween the birth of their fi rst, second and third child they moved 11.0, 9.0 and 10.5 km respectively. This observation could have been the consequence of one of two phenomena, neither of which suggests step-migration. Either a large number made short-distance moves reminiscent of “circulating” migration (Kussmaul 1981), or there were a few long-distance migrants. Figure 21 shows it to have been the latter by illustrating the proportion of urban- and rural-born mothers that moved up and down the urban hierarchy. This shows that migratory activity was concentrated prior to the birth of a fi rst child. As this paper is primarily concerned with step-migration and the extent to which migrants continued to move up the urban hierarchy, mothers are deemed to move up/down the urban hierarchy etc. relative to her previous location rather than relative to her birthplace as in previous charts. For example, if a mother was born in a rural settle- Fig. 19: Number of children co-resident with mothers, England and Wales 1851- 1901 Number of children 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Mothers' age (years) Co-resident children (1851) Co-resident children (1861) Co-resident children (1881) Co-resident children (1891) Co-resident children (1901) Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day478 Fig. 20: Number of children co-resident with an ever-married mother aged 36- 45, England and Wales 1851-1911 ment, gives birth to her fi rst child in London and her second child in Watford, this will be interpreted as an upward fi rst move followed by a downward second move. Overwhelmingly, both urban- and rural-born mothers were most likely to move up the urban hierarchy in their fi rst move. By 1911, 44.2 percent of rural-born moth- ers had moved up the urban hierarchy to a town or city while just 7.3 percent did so in their so-called second “move” between the births of their fi rst and second child. Although the urban-born were generally less likely to move up the urban hierarchy, those that did, did so in the fi rst move; 13.9 percent of urban-born mothers moved up the urban hierarchy in their fi rst move in 1911 compared to just 5.3 percent doing so in their second. This compares to 79.2 percent that had not moved settlements between the births of their fi rst and second child. Evidently, the fi rst move that both rural- and urban-born mothers made was the most signifi cant, as it appears to have placed them in their “fi nal” settlement or at least the settlement in which they were resident on census night. In order to demonstrate this more fully, fi gure 22 shows the proportion of mothers in the sample whose place of residence on census night was either the same as their place of birth or was the result of their fi rst, second, third or fourth move. If a migrants’ path was for example; Hemel Hempstead – Wat- ford – London – Watford – Watford, the “fi nal” move to Watford would be deemed to have occurred in the third move rather than in the fi rst move given the intervening move to London. Population 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Number of children Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 479 Figure 22 reinforces the interpretation of fi gure 21, demonstrating that two- thirds of all mothers were in their place of residence on census night either because they were either born there or had made that move prior to the birth of her fi rst child. Although there were some variations in the magnitude of this phenomenon by settlement type, for those that did move, the fi rst move was the most signifi cant across the urban hierarchy. From the 1851 census, 34.1 percent of rural-born moth- ers made the move to their fi nal destination in their fi rst move compared to the 1911 census, in which 38.5 percent had done so. Although the fourth move also appears to have been important– certainly more so than the second or third move – this may at least in part have been a function of return migration. Even so, it was a less signifi cant determinant of where mothers were resident on census night than the fi rst move. Indeed, the signifi cance of the fi rst move can be further emphasised in fi gure 23, which measures the proportion of mothers within x km of their fi nal des- tination by the birth of their fi rst child. Figure 23 shows that the distances that the population were from their “fi nal” destination by the time they had moved to their fi rst destination – the broken lines – had shrunk considerably relative to the distance from their birthplace – the unbro- ken lines. In 1881 for example, half of mothers were born 8 km or less from their “fi nal” destination. By the birth of their fi rst child however, half of mothers were within 1 km of where they were resident on census night. Similarly, three-quarters of all mothers in the sample were born 43 km or less from where they were enu- merated when the census was taken in 1881, but this had shrunk to just 8 km by Fig. 21: Proportion of mothers migrating across the urban hierarchy between the birthplaces of each co-resident child, England and Wales 1851-1911 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 M o ve 1 M o ve 2 M o ve 3 M o ve 4 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Rural Urban Downward move Same urban classification Same settlement Upward move Note: See text for explanation of the sample Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day480 the time mothers had given birth to their fi rst child. It is therefore evident that on any measure, migrants’ fi rst move was by far the most signifi cant and that further moves were the exception rather than the rule. Having demonstrated that there was little movement post-marriage and that in- stead the majority of migratory was concentrated in the period prior to the birth of a fi rst child, it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that migration was not stepwise at all, but should instead be characterised as having largely been the product of a single move. The fi nal section summarises these fi ndings. 7 Conclusion This article has attempted to comprehensively demonstrate that step-migration was not the process by which England and Wales urbanised, but instead, migration predominantly occurred in a single step; most commonly at the point of leaving the parental home, but occasionally delayed until leaving service or entering marriage. This fi nding demonstrates that the census is a more valuable source for the analy- sis of migration than previously thought, as the moves which historians supposed individuals made between their place of birth and place of residence on census night, did not occur in the majority of cases (Hinde 2004). Returning to the migra- Fig. 22: Move in which mothers – sorted by birthplace type – migrated to the settlement in which she was resident in census night, England and Wales 1851-1911 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lo nd o n M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an R ur al Lo nd o n M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an R ur al Lo nd o n M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an R ur al Lo nd o n M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an R ur al Lo nd o n M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an R ur al Lo nd o n M aj o r M et ro po lit an A A A M et ro p o lit an A A M et ro p o lit an A M et ro p o lit an M ic ro po lit an R ur al 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Move 4 Move 3 Move 2 Move 1 Birthplace Note: See text for explanation of the sample Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 481 tion history of Joseph Shaw, whose dramatic life inspired his son Benjamin to write the family history, does not in hindsight appear to have been more typical – despite having been more interesting – than that of Benjamin, who left home at 21, moved from Dolphinholme to Preston about 30 km south, and after fi nding a wife and a job, remained there until his death (Crosby 1991). While such autobiographies, diaries and memoirs should not be ignored, as they are valuable sources which remind us of the daily struggles that the nineteenth-century “precariat” endured, and the deci- sions required to piece together an existence, the overemphasis on them distorts what the historian perceives to have been the typical experience (Humphries 2010). Instead, Benjamin Shaw, who left home at an average age, migrated an average distance to an average-sized town and remained in an average job until his death at an average age is just as worthy of our attention. While migration may have been a complex web of interdependent moves for some, this article has argued that while the decision to move may have been complex, requiring individuals to balance a host of competing interests, the decision itself was predominantly expressed as a single transfer, rather than several. For both rural and urban migrants, the major- ity moved upon leaving home, while those that went into farm service tended to migrate only a very short distance from the parental home initially, delaying their long-distance move until they had left service, at which point many migrated to the towns and cities. Although a minority of females delayed migrating until the point of Fig. 23: Mothers’ distance (km) on census night between a) their own birthplace and b) the birthplace of their eldest co-resident child, England and Wales 1851-1911 % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Distance (km) 1851 (Distance from birthplace) 1881 (Distance from birthplace) 1911 (Distance from birthplace) 1851 (Distance from first destination) 1881 (Distance from first destination) 1911 (Distance from first destination Note: See text for explanation of the sample Source: Author’s analysis based on data from UK Data Service SN 7481 (Schürer 2019) • Joseph Day482 marriage, evidence from moves made by mothers – as reconstructed from the birth- places of their co-resident children – has shown that as migration did not continue beyond marriage, individuals’ moves at the point of marriage did not represent the fi rst “step” of many. The absence of comprehensive, longitudinal historical data, combined with the appeal of qualitative evidence such as diaries and autobiographies from which mi- gration paths have been reconstructed, (Pooley/D’Cruze 1994) has meant that the typical experience in the historical record is often at odds with the typical experi- ence of the historical actors. In light of this, Ravenstein’s stepwise hypothesis made sense. Indeed, limited quantitative evidence allowed Grigg (1977) to point out that the hypothesis would remain untested until the manuscript census returns were analysed. The census has – perhaps rightly – been treated with caution by historians of migration, suspicious that it missed the intermediate moves between individuals’ place of birth and their place of residence on census night, which individuals were hypothesised to have made. Although some individuals clearly did move in steps, it does not seem to have been either widespread, or one that was assiduously pur- sued as a strategy to move up the urban hierarchy. Rather, by demonstrating that on the whole, individuals did not migrate in steps, this article has shown that the step-migration hypothesis should yield to the single-step hypothesis in which the majority of migrants make a single move in their lifetime. It is hoped that this fi nd- ing restores the faith of migration historians in the value of the manuscript census returns for reconstructing complete migration paths, without the need for laborious and time-consuming record-linkage. Acknowledgements My thanks go to all my colleagues at the Cambridge Group for the History of Popula- tion and Social Structure for their advice and ideas offered both informally and at more formal seminars while this paper was in progress. Special thanks go to Romo- la Davenport who offered useful feedback and insights which I’m sure would have otherwise escaped me, as well as to Kevin Schürer with whom I worked closely while preparing the data analysed here. Thanks also go to Special Issue Guest Edi- tors Philip Rees and Nikola Sander for accepting this contribution and to Philip and two anonymous referees for their constructive and insightful comments and advice. This research is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council project “Mi- gration, urbanisation and socio-economic change, England and Wales 1851-1911”. Any errors and omissions that remain are, however, entirely the author’s own. The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 483 References Anderson, Michael 1971: Urban migration in nineteenth century Lancashire; some in- sights into two competing hypotheses. In: Annales de Démographie Historique: 13-26 Baines, Dudley 1986: Migration in a mature economy: Emigration and Internal Migra- tion in England and Wales 1861-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [doi: 10.1017/S0268416000000886]. Bowley, Arthur Lyon 1914: Rural population in England and Wales: a study of the chang- es of density, occupations and ages. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 77,6: 597-645 [doi: 10.2307/2340305]. Champion, Tony 2019: Updating Ravenstein: Internal Migration as a Driver of Regional Population Changes in the Wider South East of England. In: Comparative Population Studies 44: 269-290 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2020-05en]. Conway, Dennis 1980: Stepwise Migration: Toward a Clarifi cation of the Mechanism. In: International Migration Review 14,1: 3-14 [doi: 10.1177/019791838001400101]. Crosby, Alan G. (Ed.) 1991: The Family Records of Benjamin Shaw, Mechanic of Dent, Dolphinholme and Preston: 1772-1841. Chester: The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire Day, Joseph 2018: Leaving home in 19th century England and Wales: A spatial analysis. In: Demographic Research 39,4: 95-135 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.4]. Dennett, Adam; Stillwell, John 2008: Population turnover and churn: Enhancing under- standing of internal migration in Britain through measures of stability. In: Population Trends 134: 24-41. Garrett, Eilidh et al. 2001: Changing Family Size in England and Wales: Place, Class and Demography, 1891-1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grigg, David B. 1977: E. G. Ravenstein and the “laws of migration”. In: Journal of Histori- cal Geography 3,1: 41-54 [doi: 10.1016/0305-7488(77)90143-8]. Gritt, Andrew J. 2000: The Census and the Servant: A Reassessment of the Decline and Distribution of Farm Service in Early Nineteenth-Century England. In: Economic His- tory Review 53,1: 84-106 [doi: 10.1111/1468-0289.00153]. Gwynne, Terence; Sill, Michael 1976: Census enumeration: a study of mid-century im- migration. In: The Local Historian 12,2: 74-79 Hägerstrand, Torsten 1957: Migration and Area. Survey of a Sample of Swedish Migra- tion Fields and Hypothetical Considerations on their Genesis. In: Hannerberg, David; Hägerstrand, Torsten; Odeving, Bruno (Eds.): Migration in Sweden: A Symposium. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup: 27-158 Hajnal, John 1953: Age at marriage and proportions marrying. In: Population Studies 7,2: 111-136 [doi: 10.1080/00324728.1953.10415299]. Harvey, Milton E.; Riddell, J. Barry 1975: Development, Urbanization and Migration: A Test of a Hypothesis in the Third World. In: Kosiński, Leszek A.; Prothero, R. Mansell (Eds.): People on the move: Studies on internal migration. London: Methuen: 51-66 Hill, A. B. 1925: Internal migration and its effects upon the death rates with special ref- erence to the County of Essex. Medical Research Council, Special Report Series 95. London: H. M. Stationery Offi ce Hinde, Andrew 1998: Demographic Methods. London: Arnold Hinde, Andrew 2004: The use of nineteenth-century census data to investigate local migration. In: Local Population Studies 73: 8-28 • Joseph Day484 HIS-CAM for Early Period, 1800 – c.1890. Version 1.3.1.E/L [http://www.camsis.stir. ac.uk/hiscam, November 2019]. HIS-CAM for Late Period, c. 1890 – c.1938. Version 1.3.1.E/L [http://www.camsis.stir. ac.uk/hiscam, November 2019]. Holderness, B. A. 1970: Personal mobility in some rural parishes of Yorkshire, 1777-1822. In: Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42: 444-454. Hollingsworth, Thomas Henry 1970: Migration: A study based on Scottish experience between 1939 and 1964. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Hudson, John C. 1972: Geographical Diffusion Theory. Evanston: Northwestern Univer- sity Press. Hudson, John C. 1975: Some Observations on Migration Theory for an Urban System. In: Kosiński, Leszek A.; Prothero, R. Mansell (Eds.): People on the move: Studies on internal migration. London: Methuen: 67-74. Humphries, Jane 2010: Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kussmaul, Ann 1981: Servants in husbandry in early modern England. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press [doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511896002]. Lambert, Paul S. et al. 2013: The construction of HISCAM: A stratifi cation scale based on social interactions for historical comparative research. In: Historical Methods 46,2: 77-89 [doi: 10.1080/01615440.2012.715569]. Llewellyn-Smith, Hubert 1902: Infl ux of population. In: Booth, Charles: Life and Labour of the People in London. The City of London and the West End, Volume 3. London: Macmillan & Co: 100-104. Long, Jason 2005: Rural-Urban Migration and Socioeconomic Mobility in Victorian Brit- ain. In: Journal of Economic History 65,1: 1-35 [doi: 10.1017/S0022050705050011]. Mageean, Deirdre; Pryce, W. T. Rees 1982: Patterns and Processes of Internal Migration. Units 9-10 of D301: Historical Sources and the Social Scientist. Milton Keynes: Open University Press: 6-41. Mills, Dennis R.; Schürer, Kevin 1996: Migration and population turnover. In: Mills, Den- nis R; Schürer, Kevin (Eds.): Local communities in the Victorian census enumerators’ books. Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press: 218-228. Newell, Colin 1988: Methods and Models in Demography. London: Belhaven. Plane, David A.; Henrie, Christopher J.; Perry, Marc J. 2005: Migration Up and Down the Urban Hierarchy and Across the Life Course. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102,43: 15313-15318 [doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507312102]. Pooley, Colin G.; D’Cruze, Shani 1994: Migration and Urbanization in North-West England circa 1760-1830. In: Social History 19,3: 339-358 [doi: 10.1080/03071029408567913]. Prandy, Kenneth; Bottero, Wendy 2000: Social reproduction and mobility in Britain and Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In: Sociology 34,2: 265-281 [doi: 10.1177/S0038038500000171]. Prandy, Kenneth; Lambert, Paul S. 2003: Marriage, social distance and the social space: an alternative derivation and validation of the Cambridge scale. In: Sociology 37,3: 397-411 [doi: 10.1177/00380385030373001]. Pryor, Robin J. 1969: Laws of Migration? – The Experiences of Malaysia and Other Coun- tries. In: Geographica 5: 65-76. The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 485 Pryor, Robin J. 1975: Migration and the Process of Modernization. In: Kosiński, Leszek A.; Prothero, R. Mansell (Eds.): People on the move: Studies on internal migration. London: Methuen: 23-38. Ravenstein, Ernst George 1876: The Birthplaces of the People and the Laws of Migration. London: Trübner & Co. Ravenstein, Ernst George 1885: The Laws of Migration. In: Journal of the Statistical So- ciety of London 48,2: 167-235 [doi: 10.2307/2979181]. Ravenstein, Ernst George 1889: The Laws of Migration. In: Journal of the Royal Statisti- cal Society 52,2: 241-305 [doi: 10.2307/2979333]. Redford, Arthur 1926: Labour and Migration in England, 1800-1850. Manchester: Man- chester University Press. Satchell, Max; Wrigley, Edward Anthony 2011: Areal data. In: Wrigley, Edward Anthony: The early English censuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 122-154. Saville, John 1957: Rural depopulation in England and Wales, 1851-1951. London: Rout- ledge & Kegan Paul. Schürer, Kevin 1989: A note concerning the calculation of the singulate mean age at mar- riage. In: Local Population Studies 43: 67-70. Schürer, Kevin 2003: Leaving home in England and Wales 1850-1920. In: van Poppel, Frans; Oris, Michael; Lee, James Z. (Eds.): The road to independence. Leaving home in Eastern and Western societies, 16th-20th centuries. Bern: Peter Lang: 33-84. Schürer, Kevin; Penkova, Tatiana; Shi, Yanshan 2015: Standardising and Coding Birth- place Strings and Occupational Titles in the British Censuses of 1851 to 1911. In: His- torical Methods 48,4: 195-213 [doi: 10.1080/01615440.2015.1010028]. Schürer, Kevin 2019: Integrated Census Microdata (I-CeM), 1851-1911 [data collection] UK Data Service SN 7481. Skeldon, Ronald 1977: The Evolution of Migration Patterns during Urbanization in Peru. In: Geographical Review 67,4: 394-411 [doi: 10.2307/213624]. Smith, Clifford T. 1951: The movement of population in England and Wales in 1851 and 1861. In: Geographical Journal 117,2: 200-210 [doi: 10.2307/1791657]. Smith, Harry; Bennett, Robert J.; Radicic, Dragana 2018: Towns in Victorian Eng- land and Wales: a new classifi cation. In: Urban History 45,4: 568-594 [doi: 10.1017/ S0963926818000020]. Stewart, Alexander; Prandy, Kenneth; Blackburn, Robert M. 1973: Measuring the class structure. In: Nature 245: 415-417 [doi: 10.1038/245415a0]. Stewart, Alexander; Prandy, Kenneth; Blackburn, Robert M. 1980: Social stratifi cation and occupations. London: Macmillan Press. van Leeuwen, Marco H. D.; Maas, Ineke; Miles, Andrew 2002: HISCO: Historical Interna- tional Standard Classifi cation of Occupations. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Williams, Allan M.; Baláž, Vladimir 2012: Migration, risk and uncertainty: theoretical perspectives. In: Population, Space and Place 18,2: 167-180 [doi: 10.1002/psp.663]. Williamson, Jeffrey G. 1981: ‘Urban disamenities’, dark satanic mills, and the British standard of living debate. In: Journal of Economic History 41,1: 75-83 [doi: 10.1017/ S0022050700042790]. Withers, Charles W. J.; Watson, Alexandra J. 1991: Stepwise migration and Highland migration to Glasgow, 1852-1898. In: Journal of Historical Geography 17,1: 35-55 [doi: 10.1016/0305-7488(91)90004-F]. • Joseph Day486 You, Xuesheng 2020: Women's labour force participation in nineteenth-century England and Wales: evidence from the 1881 census enumerators’ books. In: Economic History Review 73,1: 106-133 [doi: 10.1111/ehr.12876]: Zhao, Jiaying; Hahn, Ulrike; Osherson, Daniel 2014: Perception and Identifi cation of Random Events. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology 40,4, 1358-1371 [doi: 10.1037/ a0036816]. Offi cial Papers Decennial supplement to registrar-general’s Sixty-fi fth Annual Report [Part I] BPP 1905 XVIII [Cd.2618] 1-731. Supplement to registrar-general’s Fifty-fi fth Annual Report. Pt.I BPP 1895 XXIII Pt [C.7769] 1-738. Supplement to registrar-general’s Seventy-fi fth Annual Report. Part III: Registration Summary Tables, 1901-1910 BPP 1914-16 VIII [Cd.8002] 2-747. Twenty-third Annual report of the registrar-general (1860) BPP 1862 XVII (2977) 196-327. Date of submission: 21.12.2019 Date of acceptance: 20.04.2020 Dr. Joseph Day (). University of Bristol, School of Geographical Sciences. Bristol, United Kingdom. E-mail: joe.day@bristol.ac.uk URL: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/geography/people/joseph-day/index.html The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 487 Appendix Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Abercarn 14364 12607 16445 Aberdare 14999 32299 35533 40917 43365 50830 Abersychan 19906 22653 17768 24656 Accrington 20063 30142 48491 57769 63777 67631 Aldershot 16720 20155 16620 30974 35175 Alfreton 11549 13885 15355 17505 19046 Altrincham 16050 20807 30040 33298 Annfield Plain 11456 15007 Arnold 11146 Ashford 9693 13962 16410 13668 Ashington 13956 24583 Ashton-in-Makerfield 13379 18687 21543 Ashton-under-Lyne 50808 53683 66732 64116 77180 84395 Atherton 12602 15833 16211 18982 Aylesbury 11048 Bacup 24413 28261 26217 22505 22318 Banbury 10154 12127 12823 12968 13523 Bangor 11269 11236 Barnet 11108 Barnsley 14913 17890 29790 35427 41086 50614 Barnstaple 8667 9990 11521 13613 13688 14485 Barrow-in-Furness 47259 51712 57586 63770 Barry 13272 27030 33763 Basingstoke 11540 Bath 60286 58667 60888 64462 67918 70893 Batley 14173 27505 28719 36425 36389 Bedford 11693 13413 22965 33237 39837 44532 Bedlington 14564 16996 18766 25440 Bedwellty 22547 Beeston 11336 Belper 10082 10420 10934 11640 Berwick 14867 13265 14599 13377 13437 13075 Beverley 11455 12595 13183 13704 Bexhill 12213 15330 Bexley 10605 12918 15895 Bilston 23527 24364 22730 23453 24034 25681 Bingley 19284 15382 15801 Birmingham & Smethwick 258920 356572 570002 663864 813861 911097 Bishop Auckland 12246 15400 15477 20746 Blackburn 50552 73300 106910 125193 131328 133052 Blackpool 12711 24637 48608 60138 Blaenavon 8499 10869 12010 Blaydon 9073 11178 20148 31015 • Joseph Day488 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Blyth 12834 16710 23351 28280 Bolsover 11214 Bolton 71000 83024 116431 142005 168215 180851 Boston 16662 14712 14937 17593 15667 16673 Bournemouth & Poole 28635 61512 59451 87611 Bradford 125584 129922 215556 223604 260863 267769 Brandon & Byshottles 15573 17667 Bridgwater 10960 12107 12704 13341 15209 16802 Bridlington 12482 14868 Brierley Hill 34257 35767 36411 12042 12263 Brighouse 20699 27125 21735 20460 Brighton & Hove 69673 87317 132295 148768 167222 179864 Bristol 149913 169245 262501 296786 352514 373012 Brownhills 2040 6525 12386 12921 Burnley 27042 37984 63777 86480 97439 109364 Burslem 19725 22327 28249 32767 47048 49361 Burton-on-Trent 14351 39407 46212 50386 48266 Bury 25077 23554 51219 62320 58029 58648 Bury St Edmunds 13900 13318 16111 16630 16255 16785 Buxton 13150 14138 Caernarvon 11995 Caerphilly 15835 32844 Camberley 13673 Camborne 12887 14056 13601 14700 14726 15829 Cambridge 30631 28743 40896 44358 51738 57007 Cannock 17125 20613 23974 28586 Canterbury 18142 20457 21413 22301 24505 24809 Cardiff 18777 39539 85914 133416 170110 191401 Carlisle 25142 30632 39328 42035 49477 50767 Carlton 10041 15581 Carmarthen 10171 10514 10338 10025 10221 Castleford 10530 14143 17386 23090 Caterham 10841 Chelmsford 11008 14888 18008 Cheltenham 40374 45659 51423 50464 53245 53437 Chertsey 11397 12762 13816 Cheshunt 12292 12954 Chester 26787 32391 40839 42666 45952 48369 Chesterfield 11426 15845 24764 34275 27185 47647 Chester-le-Street 11753 14712 Chichester 11357 12244 12591 Chorley 12684 15013 19478 23087 26852 30315 Cleator Moor 10420 The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 489 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Cleckheaton 10653 11826 12524 12866 Clitheroe 10192 10828 11414 12500 Coalville 10613 15281 18285 Colchester 19323 23697 28261 34392 38373 43452 Colne 10313 14023 23000 25689 Colwyn Bay 12630 Congleton 10520 12344 11116 10744 10707 11309 Conisbrough 11219 16119 Consett 12180 13330 17151 19562 Coseley 36574 36860 38170 22834 Coventry 44018 49076 52843 61801 75492 115084 Cowes 14704 11848 14294 Crewe 27264 32926 42074 46230 Crompton 12901 13427 14750 Crook 11096 11430 11471 12308 Dalton-in-Furness 13339 13300 13020 10763 Darlaston 10590 12884 13563 14422 15395 17107 Darlington 11650 15848 36311 39108 44511 55702 Dartford 14510 11962 18644 23609 Darwen 11702 16492 27626 31680 38212 40332 Dawley 11013 Deal 10806 12809 13456 15829 16642 Denton 12711 13993 14934 16877 Derby 42884 51049 83431 99313 113060 123410 Dewsbury 19108 24386 40032 50067 49601 53351 Doncaster 12052 17020 24868 31998 39293 48455 Dover 22073 25617 30836 33918 43958 43645 Dudley 37962 44951 46233 45724 48733 51079 Durham 15249 20290 18221 15003 16094 19596 East Barnet 10094 10780 East Retford 11010 12340 13385 Eastbourne 21595 34278 43344 51554 Eastleigh 15247 Ebbw Vale 18672 3325 17401 27250 Eccles 25994 35826 34369 41944 Eckington, Mosborough & Renishaw 11094 12357 12895 12164 Egham 10187 11895 12551 Elland 10412 10676 Ellesmere Port 10253 Enfield 12424 19104 31803 42738 56338 Epsom 10915 19156 Erith 13414 25296 27750 Eston 14011 19823 20844 29559 • Joseph Day490 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Exeter 42011 39851 48391 52094 54704 59611 Exmouth 10485 11962 Falmouth 12131 14076 11789 13132 Farnborough 11500 14199 Farnham 6124 11321 Farnworth 10625 13723 27961 31751 35143 37800 Faversham 10660 11646 10806 Featherstone 9817 11543 Fenton 14136 17325 22742 25626 Ferryhill 11822 Fleetwood 12082 15875 Folkestone 9674 19297 30293 39764 43446 Friern Barnet 11566 14924 Frome 11916 11200 11181 11464 11057 10901 Gainsborough 10979 14594 17660 20587 Gelligaer 17242 35521 Glossop 13414 14785 23550 24557 21526 21688 Gloucester 24490 26175 37464 41689 47955 50035 Goole 11187 15735 16576 20684 Grantham 10870 11116 16210 17062 18313 20070 Gravesend 21782 24626 32092 36094 40102 43534 Grays, Thurrock 12219 13834 15998 Great Harwood 12015 13815 Great Yarmouth 30879 34810 46159 48734 50704 55905 Grimsby 11067 42963 56364 75716 96076 Guildford 11645 18155 20400 23820 Halifax 54682 59860 87130 101823 104936 101553 Hanley 10573 33009 54285 62147 61599 66255 Harrogate 11826 14691 28423 35666 Harrow 16121 28997 Hartlepool 13511 25876 45256 62532 82270 84567 Harwich 10070 13622 Haslingden 10109 14298 16030 18543 18719 Hastings 16753 23375 44858 56225 65528 61145 Heanor 12418 15289 Hebburn & Jarrow 37719 50858 20901 21763 Heckmondwike 11514 14520 22039 23377 23439 23674 Hemel Hempstead 11264 12888 Hemsworth 10173 Hereford 11285 14065 17173 20122 21382 22568 Hertford 10383 Hetton-le-Hole 11000 12757 13673 15678 Heywood 13526 17248 22582 21037 25458 26697 The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 491 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 High Wycombe 8320 16409 15542 20387 Hinckley 11304 12837 Hindley 14715 18973 23504 24100 Hitchin 10788 12871 Holyhead 10079 10636 Horsham 9446 11314 Horwich 12850 15084 16285 Hounslow 11968 15533 22727 26273 30863 43313 Hoylake & West Kirby 11210 14029 Hoyland Nether 11006 12464 14638 Hucknall 10023 13094 15250 15870 Huddersfield 64013 72250 99369 111194 111187 121055 Hyde 24038 24811 29737 31682 32766 33437 Ilkeston 14122 19744 25384 31657 Ipswich 31869 36991 49360 56012 64898 73932 Jarrow 34295 33726 Keighley 18259 18819 30395 36176 41564 43487 Kendal 11829 12029 14280 14896 14183 14451 Kettering 11095 19454 28653 29972 Kidderminster 20852 13979 22299 28922 27745 27336 King's Lynn 19355 16701 18539 18360 20288 20201 Kingston-upon-Hull 85742 99196 164051 205187 239886 279245 Kingston-upon-Thames 12290 20721 35724 47217 58350 68018 Kirkby-in-Ashfield 10318 15378 Lancaster 15964 15880 23501 31038 40329 41410 Langley Park 10175 Leeds 167459 192044 289641 359092 430431 448655 Leek 11047 13003 14284 15484 16663 Leicester 60612 68056 134323 169365 211579 227222 Leigh 13707 16007 21734 28708 40001 44103 Lewes 10815 10850 11238 11066 Lincoln 17533 21090 37088 41448 49450 57285 Littleborough 7891 8384 11166 11697 Liverpool & Birkenhead 430287 541431 773109 838905 980475 1092549 Llandudno 10469 Llanelli 15470 23933 28169 25617 32071 Long Eaton 13045 19207 Longton 15149 16690 32112 35453 35815 37479 Loughborough 11210 10830 14746 18357 21508 22990 Louth 10748 10560 10691 10040 Lowestoft 10736 19696 23398 33135 37886 Luton 10648 15329 26140 32401 36404 52220 Lye 10165 10976 11684 • Joseph Day492 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Macclesfield 41189 21493 39270 37758 34624 34797 Maesteg 15012 24977 Maidenhead 9781 12980 15219 Maidstone 20740 23016 29623 33673 33516 35475 Malden 12137 Malvern 13391 13484 13324 Manchester & Salford 434525 518573 699396 799844 922278 1018640 Mansfield 10667 10225 13653 15925 21445 36888 Mansfield Woodhouse 11015 Margate 10099 10019 18226 21367 27141 30623 Maryport 13667 11897 11418 Medway Towns 45787 55541 70839 88295 111679 126941 Merthyr Tydfil 46378 49794 48861 58080 69228 80990 Mexborough 10430 14401 Middlesbrough 19416 63141 83709 101201 109230 Middleton 12548 14482 17600 19793 25178 27980 Millom 10426 Mirfield 15872 16841 11341 11712 Morecambe 11798 12131 Morley 18482 18725 21623 25774 Mossley 2112 7278 13452 13205 Mountain Ash 18652 15795 30777 41881 Nantyglo & Blaina 13489 15395 Nantyglo, Blaina & Abertillery 25913 21945 35415 Neath 10347 11060 13720 17586 Nelson 16725 31339 32816 39479 Newark 11517 11676 14238 14571 14992 16408 Newburn 10437 10781 Newbury 10609 12957 11061 12107 Newcastle & Gateshead 125817 153567 240250 308979 365841 422995 Newcastle-under-Lyme 10290 12638 17493 18425 19914 20044 Newmarket 10688 10482 Newport (Isle of Wight) 12173 Newport (Monmouthshire) 19323 24756 40456 55858 67270 83691 Newton Abbot 10951 12451 13646 Newton-le-Willows 10580 12861 16699 18451 Normanton 10234 12352 15032 Northampton 26657 32813 59042 76921 87021 86780 Northwich 8979 13886 18129 19575 20500 Norwich 68195 74440 85684 100970 116162 123844 Nottingham 94463 105372 186267 216756 246761 259904 Nuneaton 11580 24996 37073 Oakengates 7389 10906 11744 The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 493 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Ogmore 19907 16217 Oldbury 11640 15703 18306 22697 25191 32232 Oldham 59008 79819 136154 163975 165759 175782 Ossett 10957 10984 12903 14078 Oxford 28887 30992 46289 52994 57750 62424 Padiham 9923 12205 13635 Paignton 11241 Panteg 9103 Pembroke 10522 15071 13526 13925 15853 15673 Penarth 11259 14228 15488 Pendlebury 31947 35448 29949 33502 Penzance 14622 9414 15146 16639 18098 19492 Peterborough 12008 21964 26463 32315 38362 Plymouth 102184 128262 140281 158197 193184 211671 Pontefract 13136 15649 Pontypridd 13368 39557 32316 43211 Poole 12310 15438 27558 38885 Port Talbot 10389 12360 16567 25218 Portland 10061 15199 17011 Portsmouth 89034 117481 149603 184730 217017 270334 Preston 69542 85298 97445 111589 117291 123666 Pudsey 11603 12912 15459 17037 14907 14023 Purley 11389 Radcliffe 16267 34286 25368 25692 Ramsbottom 13460 15740 15920 15146 Ramsgate 14853 15152 23073 25150 27733 29603 Rawmarsh 11983 14587 17185 Rawtenstall 9891 10594 31053 30516 Reading 21456 25045 47957 63238 77721 87884 Redcar 10508 Redditch 10396 12835 15463 Redruth 10571 11504 10324 10451 10814 Reigate 18662 22641 25993 28502 Rhondda 45052 69685 113735 152781 Rhymney 11138 Ripley 10111 11848 Risca 14149 Rochdale 32260 41678 77760 80317 82623 91428 Romford 10722 13656 16970 Rotherham 13277 19000 36111 40663 54349 62483 Rowley Regis 14249 19785 27385 30791 34670 37000 Royal Leamington Spa 15724 18768 25141 26103 26888 26984 Royal Tunbridge Wells 10360 13601 24810 31292 31549 33888 • Joseph Day494 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Royton 10582 12568 14881 17069 Rugby 11262 20339 26946 Runcorn 10063 16251 21605 17729 18647 Rushden 12453 13354 Ryde 17160 16885 11043 10608 Ryhope 11185 Saddleworth 10461 13065 12320 12603 Sale 11241 13878 17651 22278 Salisbury 11360 12065 14297 17621 20871 21217 Scarborough 12915 18377 30504 33776 38161 37201 Scunthorpe 9023 15243 Seaham Harbour 10163 15757 Sedgley 16527 Sheerness 15964 15658 16111 18179 17487 Sheffield 132759 193555 303151 357807 425105 468830 Shildon 11759 13488 Shipley 28468 30505 25573 27706 Shirebrook 11116 Shotton 12561 Shrewsbury 21930 24569 27775 26967 29053 29432 Sittingbourne 12075 13515 16029 15855 Skipton 10376 11986 12977 Slough 11453 14982 South Elmsall 11445 South Shields 28974 35239 56875 78391 102416 108647 Southall 13200 26323 Southampton 41426 53996 81014 102672 122829 129270 Southend-on-Sea 13242 33312 69035 Southport 42468 55413 62280 69643 Sowerby Bridge 9172 11477 11350 Spalding 10308 Spennymoor 13772 13948 15067 14294 St Albans 10876 12707 17802 18133 St Helens 28042 37961 56872 68628 84410 96551 Stafford 10839 14358 20322 21423 22749 27783 Staleybridge 11053 27907 37038 38211 27673 26513 Stanley 15576 13586 Stapleford 11106 Staveley 11420 12018 Stockport 55235 59984 71359 88131 102295 137420 Stockton-on-Tees 11931 16613 52514 65342 72064 76866 Stoke-on-Trent 11118 17272 21621 30458 36218 Stourbridge 12284 13573 15374 14891 16302 17312 The Process of Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1851-1911 • 495 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Stroud 11006 11255 13871 15020 14695 14678 Sunderland 68753 87879 127751 141745 158623 168056 Sutton 10334 13977 17223 21270 Sutton Coldfield 14264 20132 Sutton-in-Ashfield 10562 14862 21708 Swansea 35233 45039 83395 98592 102702 136210 Swindon 19904 36233 48373 54440 Swinton 12217 13654 Taunton 15745 14750 18351 18026 21087 22561 Teddington 15874 14037 17847 Tipton 24872 28870 30013 29314 30543 31756 Tiverton 11144 10447 10462 10892 10382 10205 Todmorden 17265 20287 23213 24103 25418 25404 Tonbridge 17734 12736 14796 Torquay 11474 19650 30737 32383 33625 38771 Tredegar 34685 35628 18497 23601 Trowbridge 11148 10487 11394 11901 11526 11815 Truro 16377 17487 6294 14978 11562 11325 Tunstall 11207 29675 30883 19492 22494 Twickenham 12479 16027 20991 29367 Tyldesley 12891 14843 15582 Tynemouth 28799 33698 45621 44968 49623 58816 Ulverston 10008 10015 10064 Urmston 10250 12757 Uxbridge 10374 Wakefield 23057 24256 36923 40077 48256 51511 Wallington 15742 29893 Wallsend 32873 42275 34254 40734 Walsall 27626 40602 64262 78377 86430 92115 Walton-le-Dale 10556 11271 12350 Walton-on-Thames 10329 12856 Warrington 23342 26935 45239 54909 65276 79308 Warwick 10973 10589 11800 11903 11889 11858 Watford 15507 25921 29124 40939 Wednesbury 14281 21968 24566 25347 26554 28103 Wellingborough 13794 15068 18412 19753 Wembley 10696 West Bromwich 34591 41795 56295 59474 65175 70735 West Houghton 11077 13339 15046 Weston-super-Mare 12884 15520 19048 23235 Weymouth 10128 12038 14298 15399 19843 22324 Whickham 12852 18332 Whitby 10203 11137 13659 12598 11368 11139 • Joseph Day496 Appendix: Continuation Urban Settlement 1851 1861 1881 1891 1901 1911 Whitehaven 19292 19535 20371 19733 19219 21313 Whitley Bay 11436 Whittington 10344 Whitworth 20844 Widnes 24935 30011 33280 34441 Wigan 40863 52794 77963 92668 103690 111186 Willenhall 11931 17256 18461 19366 18515 18844 Winchester 13442 14393 18668 19843 21339 23878 Windsor & Eton 14874 15073 21111 20972 23602 17759 Wingate 10890 Winsford 10041 10440 10382 10770 Wisbech 10594 10822 Woking 18349 24808 Wolverhampton 49927 60860 89036 97353 110150 122246 Wolverton 7384 Wombwell 10942 13252 17536 Worcester 27677 30561 42506 43504 46624 48011 Workington 14361 23751 26143 25065 Worksop 11625 12734 16112 20387 Worsborough 10336 12750 Worthing 12662 17622 21735 30305 Wrexham 10939 12552 14966 18377 Yeovil 10943 12057 13759 York 35456 43791 63911 70733 77914 82282 Note: The populations of the towns and cities in this appendix are colour-coded to indi- cate their position in the urban hierarchy for each census year. The colours correspond to those used in table 1. For ease of reference: See section 2 for the method used to place towns and cities in the urban hierarchy. Source: Author’s calculations using data from Smith et al. 2018 Major Metropolitan AAA Metropolitan AA Metropolitan A Metropolitan Micropolitan Published by Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider Federal Institute for Population Research D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany 2019 Managing Editor Prof. Philip Rees Dr. Katrin Schiefer Copy Editor Julia Luther Editorial Assistant Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs Wiebke Hamann Layout Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board Karsten Hank (Cologne) Michaela Kreyenfeld (Berlin) Marc Luy (Vienna) Natalie Nitsche (Vienna) Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz) Zsolt Spéder (Budapest) Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers Martin Abraham (Erlangen) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn) Claudia Diehl (Konstanz) Andreas Diekmann (Zurich) Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock) Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna) Beat Fux (Salzburg) Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley) Sonja Haug (Regensburg) Hill Kulu (Liverpool) Aart C. Liefbroer (The Hague) Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz) Emma Lundholm (Umeå) Nadja Milewski (Rostock) Dimiter Philipov (Vienna) Roland Rau (Rostock) Tomáš Sobotka (Vienna) Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona) Olivier Thévenon (Paris) Helga de Valk (Brussels) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Michael Wagner (Cologne)