Case Study: Middleton Place
Analysis of Middleton Place, Loughborough, as presented in the census returns of 1891, 1901 and 1911
Tracing the development of Middleton Place from 1891, when it was a relatively new street in Loughborough, through to 1911 brings to light some interesting information …
Rich data is available for the town of Loughborough through the national census returns of 1841-1911, which once analysed, can inform the history of the town through its people and their relationships, through its industry and its topography. The analysis of census returns for 1891-1911 for a specific street in the town will reveal much about town life during the period.
Today
Loughborough is a bustling market town, the second biggest town after the town
of Leicester in the county of Leicestershire. Described as Lucteburne in the
Domesday Book, in 1086 Loughborough comprised 39 households (i.e. heads of
household) and was in the administrative district of Goscote (later to become
West Goscote) in the county of Leicester.
Figure 1 Extract for Loughborough from the Domesday Book [i]
Evidence of earlier settlements at Loughborough are evident both from excavated archaeological remains, for example Roman pottery, and in the present-day street names, like Church Gate, Pinfold Gate etc., based on the street names ascribed by the Vikings.
During the fourteenth and subsequent centuries the town of Loughborough traded in wool, and during the fifteenth century became part of the Staple of Calais. Hosiery work in the homes of the townsfolk was superseded by the development of the industrial framework knitting machines, made possible by the developments of the Industrial Revolution, which saw iron works, coach builders, crane builders and engineering companies flourish in the town.
Loughborough benefitted from the transport facilities offered by both the Grand Union Canal, and the Manchester to London trunk road, on which the town sat. At one time Loughborough had three railway stations, and it has the honour of being the destination for the first ever “package tour”, when, in 1841, Thomas Cook of Leicester (though living in Market Harborough at the time) brought a group of people from Leicester to Loughborough on a Temperance visit.
Today, the town is home to a growing university, and to a variety of industries, including the only remaining bell foundry in the UK. The twice-weekly general markets, the weekly bric-a-brac market and the monthly farmers’ market, as well as the annual street fair, all date back to the 1200s, and are still flourishing today.
In addition to its markets, Loughborough boasts five museums, the Great Central Railway, some very fine art deco architecture, a beautifully kept park created during Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee, and possibly the finest War Memorial in the country, being a 151-foot tall Carillon Tower. The population continues to increase year on year, and is currently [2017] c.60,000.
At the time of the 1891 census the population of Loughborough was about 18,000 and an analysis of this population can shed much light on the town, its industry and its inhabitants. However, whilst the decennial census returns provide valuable information pertaining, amongst other things, to individuals, families, geographical locations and industry, there are a number of limitations imposed not only in the actual data provided, but also in what was recorded and how it was recorded.
Research has revealed some of these limitations, but this is not an exhaustive list.
The
enumerator’s handwriting is not always easy to read, and whilst an
interpretation of this can produce some information, it might not actually be
the right information, so further checking may be necessary. In some of the
areas I have been researching, particularly in relation to place of birth and
occupation, it has proved difficult to read and interpret, so I have been
reduced to using my 21st-century knowledge and assumptions to arrive
at a plausible result. There have also been occasions when re-visiting the
census returns produce “Eureka” moments that were elusive on previous viewings.
Figure 2 In this example from Ashby Road 1891, the final occupation revealed itself after a second viewing, but the type of housemaid that Louisa Carter remains elusive [ii]
The
census returns only record those people in the house on the night and the early hours of the morning following the census: as some people may have been away, the census doesn’t
necessarily include everyone who lived in the house. On this example from
Oxford Street in Loughborough, the enumerator has helpfully recorded in the
margin that Emma Parkinson’s husband was away for work at the time of the
census.
Figure 3 Useful margin entry from the 1891 census return for Oxford
Street, Loughborough [iii]
House numbering may have changed and some houses listed only under their name may have changed name, or even been demolished, as in Ashby Road, making it difficult to map to the present-day street and occupants.
Figure 4 Extract from Ashby Road 1891 census return [iv]
Lost or damaged pages has been a problem for some areas included in this research.
Figure 5 Example of
defacement in this extract from 1901 census return for Middleton Place [v]
Relationship to head of household may not have been accurately recorded: without checking each entry further it is best not to rely on this information, making it impossible to confirm some of the relationships which appeared in the streets of Loughborough in 1891.
Figure 6 Clara Gilbert listed as a step-daughter to George
Upton on the 1891 census returns for Oxford Street, Loughborough [vi]
A further problem may be encountered if one relies solely on the transcriptions: many errors can creep in, ranging from wrongly transcribed names (which can render people untraceable, or at the very least, harder to trace), wrongly transcribed occupations, which then necessitate further investigation, and mis-transcribed place names. The latter can be difficult to verify, as it is quite possible that a place listed in census returns may no longer exist, or there may be more than one place with the same name, thus making it more troublesome to ensure accuracy.
A final problem is that of applying modern-day knowledge, or assumption to the information presented. I found this to be particularly distracting when looking at the census returns for Oxford Street, I might have found the decoding of the occupations more difficult had I not known that framework knitting and hosiery making were big trades in Loughborough. The danger here is in the potential to make the wrong assumptions, although this can sometimes be mitigated by returning to the source at a later date and re-examining.
From the source data provided by the census returns it is clear that one specific street, Middleton Place, in Loughborough, was a newly-built street, still under construction in 1891, for by the time of the 1911 census, more houses had been built, and were occupied. It is therefore possible to compare the street over the 1891, 1901 and 1911 census returns.
The
chart below shows the range of properties, listed by house number, between 1891
and 1911, and the number of people living in each household. The 41 properties
shown are inhabited by a total of 144 people, giving an average of 3.4 people
per household. More specifically, in 1891 the average number of people per
household was 2.8; in 1901 this was 4, and in 1911 this was 3.2, giving a
median occupancy of 3.4.
Chart 1 Inhabitants of Middleton Place, 1891, 1901 and 1911
Chart 2 Number of inhabitants per property
From Chart 2, above, it is clear that more people lived in two-person households than in any other sized household, and the more people living in a household there were then the less common this was.
A
breakdown of the occupants of Middleton Place across the three census years, by
categories such as whether or not they were working, and whether they were
adults or children is shown in Chart 3, from which it is clear that in 1891 one
property was shared by two “families” (see also Figure 8).
|
Middleton Place |
1891 |
1901 |
1911 |
|
Properties |
5 |
17 |
19 |
|
Households |
6 |
17 |
19 |
|
Inhabitants |
14 |
67 |
62 |
|
Working |
5 |
27 |
24 |
|
Not working |
6 |
18 |
25 |
|
Men |
5 |
19 |
21 |
|
Women |
6 |
25 |
28 |
|
Children |
3 |
23 |
13 |
Chart 3 Breakdown of inhabitants of Middleton Place, 1891, 1901 and
1911
Figure 8 1891 census entry for number 9 Middleton Place
showing a divided property [viii]
Chart
3 also shows that, excluding children, there were consistently more female
inhabitants of Middleton Place than male, which can be seen more clearly in the
following graph:
This could be partially explained by the live-in servants [ix], all of whom were female. Interestingly, in 1891, where the ratio of male to female inhabitants is 5:6, there were no servants living with families in Middleton Place. Another factor may be the two-female household that was present in all three years, and the three female heads of household listed in 1901. However, in order to prove anything statistically, it would be necessary to compare in detail the numbers of male and female children.
A
comparison of the numbers of children in each family could be made, however, I
have chosen to undertake a more basic analysis using a household composition
analysis form, provided by the course tutors. The graph below shows the
composition of households in Middleton Place for all three census years.
Household category 3b (married couples with children) was the most common in
1901 (10 households) and 1911 (6 households) while category 3a (married couples
without children) was the second most common type, with 5 households in 1911
and 3 in 1901. It is notable that there are no households in category 5, and it
is likely that those in the Indeterminate category are there because of my
inability to categorise them.
Chart 5 Household Composition
It is clear that the majority of families are categorised as either 3a or 3b, and that with 18 households of type 3b, this is almost twice the number of type 3a households, of which there were 10.
Chart 6 Households per Category
Of the 41 households analysed, 71% fall into category 3, which indicates that Middleton Place was predominantly an area of conjugal family units.
Over the three census years there were a total of 144 people living on Middleton Place. After excluding people living on their own means, those who had retired, and those at school, 57 of these folk were working, in areas ranging from teaching to shop assistants, from clergy to gardeners, from brick manufacturers to engineers and draughtsmen, and from domestic servants to photographers.
Using Charles Booth’s occupational classification, it is possible to compare occupations over the three census periods. Such classification is sometimes difficult, if, for example, an occupation no longer exists, or if the exact work is unclear: whilst I have been consistent in my classification, my decisions may not be correct.
The following table shows the occupations associated with residents of Middleton Place across the three census years. Occupations like Agriculture are completely absent, whilst Manufacturing features heavily. What is not evident from this table is the industries in which people worked, which often featured the word “hosiery” or “crane manufacturer”. In the latter case, it is clear to me that this was Herbert Morris: other firms could be confirmed by consulting trade directories.
The General Register Office classifications might suggest that in 1891 Middleton Place was predominantly inhabited by Class 1 residents, and in 1911 by Class III.
|
Class |
Number of
persons 1891 |
Number of
persons 1901 |
Number of
persons 1911 |
|
Agriculture,
breeding, fishing |
|||
|
Mining
and quarrying |
|||
|
Building
and contracting |
|||
|
Manufacture |
9 |
14 |
|
|
Transport |
|||
|
Dealing |
9 |
2 |
|
|
Industrial
service (commercial) |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
Industrial
service (general & unspecified labour) |
|||
|
Public
service & professional |
4 |
1 |
3 |
|
Domestic
service |
5 |
3 |
|
|
Property
owning, indefinite and independent |
|||
|
Total |
5 |
27 |
24 |
Table
1 Occupations associated with residents of Middleton Place
If
the occupations held by the residents of Middleton Place were fascinating, then
the following three tables which indicate the distance from Loughborough of the
place of birth of the inhabitants over the three census years are even more so.
I have omitted from Table 1 the gentleman who was born in Mauritius simply
because the distance of over 6000 miles is an outlier of gargantuan proportions
that is simply beyond my level of mathematical capability. Those people omitted
from Table 2 are those whose birthplace is listed simply as Leicestershire (3
people) or Nottinghamshire (5 people). The name of the county is not helpful,
as the distance from Loughborough in the case of Leicestershire could be
anything from 0 to 26 miles, whilst from Nottinghamshire this could be between
2 and 16 [x]
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Distance
Band Order |
Distance
Band (miles) |
Weighting
(calculated) |
Number of
migrants 1891 census |
Standardised
Migration Flows |
|
1 |
0-5 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
2 |
6-10 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
11-15 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
|
4 |
16-20 |
7 |
1 |
0.14 |
|
5 |
21-50 |
84 |
3 |
0.04 |
|
6 |
51-100 |
300 |
3 |
0.01 |
|
7 |
100-200 |
1200 |
3 |
0.0025 |
Table 2 Migration flow to Loughborough
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Distance
Band Order |
Distance
Band (miles) |
Weighting
(calculated) |
Number of
migrants 1901 census |
Standardised
Migration Flows |
|
1 |
0-5 |
1 |
40 |
40.0000 |
|
2 |
6-10 |
3 |
4 |
1.3333 |
|
3 |
11-15 |
5 |
5 |
1.0000 |
|
4 |
16-20 |
7 |
1 |
0.1429 |
|
5 |
21-50 |
84 |
7 |
0.0833 |
|
6 |
51-100 |
300 |
1 |
0.0033 |
|
7 |
100-200 |
1200 |
1 |
0.0008 |
Table 3 Migration flow to Loughborough
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Distance
Band Order |
Distance
Band (miles) |
Weighting
(calculated) |
Number of
migrants 1911 census |
Standardised
Migration Flows |
|
1 |
0-5 |
1 |
22 |
22.0000 |
|
2 |
6-10 |
3 |
3 |
1.0000 |
|
3 |
11-15 |
5 |
4 |
0.8000 |
|
4 |
16-20 |
7 |
1 |
0.1429 |
|
5 |
21-50 |
84 |
10 |
0.1190 |
|
6 |
51-100 |
300 |
13 |
0.0433 |
|
7 |
100-200 |
1200 |
4 |
0.0033 |
|
8 |
200-300 |
2000 |
5 |
0.0025 |
Table 4 Migration flow to Loughborough
A
graphical representation of this data is perhaps more illuminating:
Whilst I have labelled place of birth “migrants”, it is interesting to note that in 1891 two of the three inhabitants who were born within the 0-5 mile radius were children born in Loughborough, to the gentleman from Mauritius and that in 1901 59% of the inhabitants were born within 5 miles of Loughborough. Whilst 35% of the residents in 1911 were born in Loughborough, 21% were born between 51 and 100 miles away.
The above analysis of the number of inhabitants, the composition of each household, the occupation of the residents and their birthplace, of Middleton Place in the census years of 1891, 1901 and 1911, shows how the street was changing. An even more detailed picture of Middleton Place could be built up with an age comparison across the three years; an investigation of local firms with a view to identifying the exact companies that inhabitants worked for; a cross-check for any familial relationships between household members, and with visitors, or lodgers (not always mentioned on census returns), and further investigation into the lives of the people recorded on the census returns.
Further analysis of a similar street (e.g. Fearon Street), and differing streets (e.g. Ashby Road and Oxford Street) would give an even better picture of how Loughborough was developing.
[i] Palmer, John and
Slater, George (No date) Open Domesday. Online. Hull: University of Hull.
Available from: http://opendomesday.org/place/SK5319/loughborough/ Accessed 5 January 2017
[ii] Class: RG12; Piece: 2514; Folio: 10; Page: 1; GSU
roll: 6097624 [Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[iii]
Class: RG12; Piece: 2514; Folio: 21; Page: 24; GSU
roll: 6097624 [Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[iv] Class: RG12; Piece: 2514; Folio: 10; Page: 1; GSU
roll: 6097624 [Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[v] Class: RG13; Piece: 2978; Folio: 68; Page: 44
[Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[vi] Class: RG12; Piece: 2514; Folio: 21; Page: 24; GSU
roll: 6097624 [Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[vii] Class: RG12; Piece: 2514; Folio: 12; Page: 5; GSU
roll: 6097624 [Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[viii]
Class: RG12; Piece: 2516; Folio: 68; Page: 41; GSU
roll: 6097626 [Online] Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk Accessed: 6
January 2017
[ix] I have included
the occupation of “nurse” in this category, as this was someone unrelated who
was helping with a newborn baby. I have not included a daughter aged 31 who was
“assisting her mother with housework”.
[x] Stanford-on-Soar is just inside the border of Nottinghamshire, but is only 2 miles from the town of Loughborough.
Bibliography
Ancestry.com. 1891 England Census [database
on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk
Accessed: 6 January 2017
[Original data: Census Returns of England and Wales, 1891. Kew, Surrey,
England: The National Archives of the UK (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO),
1891. Data imaged from The National Archives, London, England. 2,131 rolls.]
Ancestry.com. 1901 England Census [database
on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk
Accessed: 6 January 2017
[Original data: Census Returns of England and Wales, 1901. Kew, Surrey,
England: The National Archives, 1901. Data imaged from the National Archives,
London, England.]
Ancestry.com. 1911 England Census Summary Books [database
on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk
Accessed: 6 January 2017
[Original data: 1911 Census Enumerator's Summary Books. Kew, Surrey,
England: The National Archives of the UK (TNA), 1911. Data imaged from the
National Archives, London, England.]
Ancestry.com. 1911 England Census [database
on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available from: www.ancestry.co.uk
Accessed: 6 January 2017
Original data: Census Returns of England and Wales, 1911. Kew, Surrey,
England: The National Archives of the UK (TNA), 1911.
Colclough, Nevill and Hosking, Jean (1992-6) Laslett Household classification. In: Family and neighbourhood: Ascoli Satriano 1700-1990. Online. Kent: University of Canterbury. Available from: http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/jb6/archives/ascpaper/laslett/laslett.html Accessed: 5 January 2017
Deakin, W.A. (1974) 19th century Loughborough. Loughborough: The Echo Press Ltd.
Evans, I.M. (Ed.) (1976). Charnwood’s heritage. Leicester: Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries and Records Service
Palmer, John and Slater, George (No date) Open Domesday. Online. Hull: University of Hull. Available from: http://opendomesday.org/place/SK5319/loughborough/ Accessed 5 January 2017
Richmond, Anne (1992) Elizabethan Loughborough. Loughborough: Loughborough Archaeological Society
University of Leicester (No date). Occupational classifications: the census returns for England and Wales. [Online] Leicester: University of Leicester. Available from: http://www.le.ac.uk/eh/teach/ug/modules/eh3107/occupations.pdf Accessed: 7 January 2017
Wix, Donald H.C. et al. (Eds.) (1975) Bygone Loughborough in photographs: Volume 2. Leicester: Leicestershire Libraries and Information Services.
Wix, Donald H.C. and Goodwin, Adam (Eds.) (2005) The making of Loughborough. Loughborough: Friends of Charnwood Museum.
Yorvik Viking Centre, in Association with York Archaeological Trust [c.2012-17] Yorvik Viking Centre Home. Online. York: YVC, in association with YAT. Available from: http://jorvik-viking-centre.co.uk/ Accessed: 6 January 2017
©
Lynne Dyer, January 2017
You are welcome to quote passages from any of my posts, with appropriate credit. The correct citation for this looks as follows: Dyer, Lynne (2021). Case study: Middleton Place. Available from: https://lynneaboutthestreetsofloughborough.blogspot.com/2021/02/case-study-middleton-place.html [Accessed 4 February 2021]
Comments
Post a Comment