Contentserver

Evidence Matters
HISTORICAL METHODS, Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

Copyright 2009 Heldref Publications
How Many Irish Potato Famine Deaths?

Toward Coherence of the Evidence
HUBERT P. H. NUSTELING
Department of History
Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
The English Census of 1841 and Irish

Demographic History
Abstract. The author reexamines English, Irish, and American

demographic statistics to produce new estimates of the extent
of mortality and migration during the well-known Irish Potato
Famine of the 1840s. He concludes that there was significantly
more emigration and significantly less mortality in Ireland than is
commonly believed. The starting point is a homeostatic population
series, which indicates that the 1841 English census population
total was about 6 percent too high. Most scholars assume that the
total population figure in that census is reliable, although many
have questioned the numbers of people that the census assigned to
each age group. The lower homeostatic population total for 1841,
extrapolated from marriage data, implies that Irish migration to
England during the two succeeding decades was at least twice as
large as has generally been accepted. In addition to changing the
migration totals, substituting the homeostatic population estimate
for the 1841 census total would create greater consistency between
the population and other English statistics during this period.
If one supposes the population totals from the English census of 1841 are too high, then what follows? The most important implications are that the birth registration figures for the
nineteenth century would then seem more complete; economic statistics would match population statistics and growth
rates in a more normal fashion; migration statistics would fit
with population statistics more closely; and, most important,
we would get new, higher estimates of Irish migration and
new, lower death rates from the potato famine. Such revisions
would greatly alter our view of the best-known event in Irish
demographic history. But why might we suppose that the
1841 census population is too high? The first consideration
is that a new population series constructed from marriage
statistics, using the homeostatic method I introduced in an
article on Amsterdam, implies that the population in 1841
was 6 percent lower than the official number published in the
census (Nusteling 2005).
Results from the earlier study of Amsterdam provide reasons for confidence in the homeostatic method. In estimating the population of Amsterdam from 1586 to 1865, the
homeostatic method delivered very precise results, differing
no more than 1 or 2 percent from the available census data.
That model assumes a constant relationship between fertile
marriages and the size of the total population. Corrections
are made for illegitimate births. Until the demographic transition, beginning in most parts of Western Europe around
1870, there was a tight and stable relationship between
population size and fertile marriages, so for periods before
about 1870, population estimates based on the numbers of
marriages should be quite accurate.
The method is referred to as homeostatic because of the
assumed constant relation between population and marriages. This relation shows offsetting peculiarities, which
explains why I prefer extrapolating from a series of first
marriages over longer periods before 1800, when there
Keywords: birthrates, death rates, 1841 English census, Irish

excess deaths, Irish Potato Famine, natural increase, population
growth in the United Kingdom, transatlantic migration 184161,
U.S. migration statistics
he potato famine between 1846 and 1850 is a

watershed in Irish history. After a peak in 1845
ofprobably8.3 million inhabitants, Ireland lost
a large part of its population. According to the 1851 census, the population shrank to 6.55 million persons. Many
historians believe that during the famine years, there was
an excess mortality of 1 million persons, in addition to the
1.5 million migrants who left their homeland during this
period. In this article, I question the traditionally accepted
number of deaths during the famine. I investigate the available demographic data in the United Kingdom (Ireland and
Great Britain) about population growth, natural increase,
and migration. Another important consideration is the transatlantic migration from the United Kingdom, especially to
the United States. I conclude that there was much more
emigration and significantly less mortality in Ireland than
is commonly believed.
57
58
HISTORICAL METHODS
Population / 1,000
were no regular censuses. At that time, mortality was high.

Many widows and widowers remarried, in this way repairing lost marital fertility. When mortality declined, remarriage rates declined accordingly. The lack of death data
therefore should not introduce grave distortions as long as
first marriages can be applied to the computations; thus,
remarriages have been left aside.
Using marriage data compiled by E. Anthony Wrigley
and Roger S. Schofield (1981, 500502), I constructed a
homeostatic population series for England covering the
period from 1789 to 1871. The population series that I
obtained (Nusteling 1993) fits very well with the available census totals with two exceptions: The homeostatic
population exceeds the census population for 1801 by 6
to 7 percent, and the 1841 census population is 6 percent
higher than the corresponding homeostatic population total.
The first difference does not arouse concern, because the
1801 census was the first general enumeration of Englands
population and is commonly believed to have missed parishes containing about 5 percent of the countrys inhabitants
(Wrigley and Schofield 1981, 122). The close fit of the
homeostatic estimates and the census totals for the other
censuses suggests that this method is as valid for England
as it was shown to be for Amsterdam.
In addition to the homeostatic series, a second reason for
questioning the 1841 census totals is the original criticism
of the quality of the census by William Farr (1974), who
oversaw the registration of births, deaths, and marriages
in England as of 1839, shortly after the establishment of
the General Registrar Office (GRO), and who also supervised the censuses of 1851, 1861, and 1871. Farr believed
the census returns of ageespecially for childrenwere
very defective and regarded the registration of births and
deaths to be more accurate. His influence was great: in
the introduction to Farrs Mortality in Mid 19th Century

Britain, Richard Wall (ibid.) wrote that the mass of tables
that Farr produced precluded argument and has left him
with the last word on every subject.1 Farrs criticisms have
been echoed by more modern scholars. David Glass (1951,
72), observing that the official census totals for nineteenthcentury England had never been appropriately checked,
admitted to being unable to manage such an inquiry. While
generally accepting the population totals of the census as
reliable, Wrigley and Schofield (1981, 10413), affiliated
with the Cambridge Group for the History of Population
Studies and Social Structure, amended the younger age
classes of the enumeration on the basis of life tables and the
age classes in the 1851 census. Wrigley and Schofieldand
othershave also given much attention to the registered
birth numbers of the 1840s onward. Using the age structure
data of the censuses, they have substantially augmented the
original birth totals of the early years of the GRO (see Glass
1951, 7087; Teitelbaum 1974, 32935; and Wrigley and
Schofield 1981, 63637).
A third hint that the 1841 population totals may be wrong
comes from building statistics. In his Building Cycles and
Britains Growth, J. Parry Lewis (1965, 62) pointed to the
anomaly that in the 1830s a large proportion of the production of bricks must have gone into increasing the national
stock of houses by almost half a million houses [according to
the censuses], but the increased brick output of the [1840s]
saw a lower net addition to the number of the houses. Lewis
had his doubts about the current explanation of this discrepancy in the literature, which ascribes the larger brick output
during the 1840s to expanded railway construction. According to Lewis, brick production lagged in time behind railway
construction. Being more an indirect than a direct cause of
the larger output, the railways cannot answer the question
Official registration
Wrigley and Schofield
Nusteling
15
10
5
1781
1801
1821
1841
1861
1881
1901
1921
1941
Year
FIGURE 1. Population growth in England, 17811901.

Sources: Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new answer to old questions. Annales de Demographie Historique: 17189,
table 1; Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England,
15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2
59
National income / 1,000
30
20
10
-10
1781
1801
1821
1841
1861
1881
1901
1921
1941
Year
FIGURE 2. Annual growth of national income in United Kingdom, 17811901.

Source: Mitchell, B. R. 1988. British historical statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 269, 366.
definitively.2 Therefore, the construction of about 4,000 miles

of railways in the 1840s also cannot explain a demolition of
150,000 houses, which is required to bring the brick output of
that decade in agreement with the scale of the building activities of the thirties (ibid., 63). However, the anomaly of brick
outputs disappears if we accept the homeostatic population
estimate for 1841, because it implies a diminished number of
new houses for the 1830s and a surge of new housing in the
following decade.
A fourth reason to question the 1841 census total is that
the official population series, as well as Wrigley and Schofields (1981) amended series, does not track UK national
income data well before 1861, whereas the homeostatic
population series, which extends only to 1871, appears to
correlate (inversely) with the income data more closely (see
figure 1 and figure 2).
Having planted some doubts in the mind of the reader
about the validity of the 1841 census population totals,
I reexamine data on two key demographic indicators
migration flows and birthrates. A simple mathematical
identity proves their centrality to population estimates:
The population size of a certain moment has to be equal
to that at a previous point in time, augmented by the
natural increase (births minus deaths) and the net migration
(immigration minus emigration) in the intervening period.
Furthermore, birth data can be checked by means of age
classes of children and corresponding mortality. Migration
figures must be verified by similar data. Thus, I check the
migration numbers for England derived from population
and natural increase totals by comparing them with statistics about passengers embarking or disembarking in UK
harbors and with relevant statistics concerning migrants in
other countries.
I show that combining homeostatic population totals and
only slightly corrected official (registered) birth and death
totals brings about a picture of net migration for England

in the mid-nineteenth century that differs markedly from
prevailing views. I then consider the compatibility of this
new, much larger estimate of net immigration into England
for the period from 1841 to 1861, which is mainly a consequence of reducing the population total for this country in
1841, with the available statistics concerning the migration
flows between the United Kingdom, the United States, and
other parts of the world. I go on to discuss the demography
of Ireland, then a constituent part of the United Kingdom,
along with Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales).
The central issue of Irish demographic history of the nineteenth century is the number of Irish who died at home
during the potato famine and the number who migrated to
Great Britain and the United States. My principal finding
is that more Irish migrated to Great Britain and fewer died
during the Famine than was previously believed. I also summarize the implications for demographic history in general
and British and Irish history in particular, proposing a substantial revision in the histories of both countries.
New Series on English Natural Increase and Migration
Registered Births and Deaths in England between 1841
and 1861
The homeostatic population series, which differs only
slightly from the 1851 and 1861 census totals, offers an
opportunity to test data on births and deaths and to determine the size of net migration. Next to registered birth and
death data, table 1 contains net migration data and crude
birthrates and death rates, all calculated with use of homeostatic population totals for the period from 1841 until 1871.
The birthrates in table 1 vary between 34.0 and 35.1 per
1,000. Suppose that the crude birthrates were normally 35.5
60
HISTORICAL METHODS
TABLE 1. Registered Births, Deaths, and Natural Increase, in Combination with Homeostatic Birthrates (per 1,000), Death
Rates (per 1,000), and Net Migration, England (without Monmouth): 184171
Registered
Date
184151
185161
186171
Total
184161
Homeostatic
Births
Deaths
Natural
increase
Population
increase
Net migration
Birthrate
(crude)
Deathrate
(crude)
5,199,233
6,101,504
7,077,153
3,555,831
3,967,054
4,528,806
1,643,402
2,134,450
2,548,347
2,630,000
2,350,000
2,350,000
986,600
215,550
198,347
34.0
34.3
35.1
23.2
22.3
22.5
11,300,737
7,522,885
3,777,852
4,980,000
1,202,150
34.1
22.7
Sources: For registered births and deaths, see Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 636. For homeostatic populations, see Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics
for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new answer to old questions. Annales de Demographie Historique: 17189.
per 1,000, as Farr believed for the first decades of the GRO.
Then the official birth registration would underestimate
births, compared with the homeostatic population totals,
by 4.4 percent during the 1840s, 3.5 percent during the
1850s, and 1.1 percent during the 1860s. These percentages
are low compared with corrections by Farr (1974), Glass
(1951), Michael Teitelbaum (1974), and Wrigley and Schofield (1981), particularly for the years 184151. Their series
of registered births are on average 7.2 percent, 3.7 percent,
and 2.3 percent higher, respectively, than the official totals
for the decades under consideration.
Table 2 details the corrections that Farr and his followers made to the official birth statistics. They arrived
at their corrections by projecting the size of the newbornto-nine-year-old population in the 1851 census back
to 1841, using a life table. Their key assumption was
that net migration into England was negligible. However, tables 1 and 3 suggest that almost 1 million people
migrated to England in the 1840s, which would make
their estimated birth totals 4 to 5 percent too high. That
number of immigrants during the 1840s would make up
nearly 6 percent of the 1851 (homeostatic) population.
Most of them came in the second half of the decade, so
that probably two-thirds of the newborn-to-nine-yearold Irish children figuring in the 1851 census must have
been born in Ireland. Consequently, the percentage of
missing births in the 1840s would be close to 2.4 percent
(7.2 [average Farr, Glass, Teitelbaum, and Wrigley and
Schofield] 1 / 3; see table 2). If this chain of reasoning is correct, then from 1841 to 1861, the official birth
registration was probably understated by no more than
about 2.5 percent.
Opinions also diverge in regard to mortality in the middle
of the century. According to Wrigley and Schofield, (1981,
145, 535), general mortality decreased by 2 percent in
185161, compared with the previous 10 years. However,
Teitelbaum (1974, 334) asserted that mortality for young
children had risen by around 2.5 percent in the 1850s,
TABLE 2. Different Estimates of Underregistration in

the Official Birth Registration in England in Percentages: 184180
Date
Farr
184150
185160
186170
187180
6.9
3.0
1.8
n.a.
Wrigley
and
Glass Teitelbaum Schofield Average
7.9
4.2
2.0
0.7
6.1
2.8
1.9
0.4
7.8
4.9
3.3
n.a.
7.2
3.7
2.3
n.a.
Sources: Teitelbaum, M. S. 1974. Birth underregistration in the

constituent counties of England and Wales: 18411910. Population Studies 28:334; and Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield.
1981. The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 636.
compared with the officially registered rate for 184150.

Thus, the difference between the Teitlebaum and Wrigley
and Schofield estimates is nearly 5 percent. All agree,
however, that registration of deaths was nearly complete by
the 1850s (see Glass 1951, 7477; Wrigley and Schofield
1981, 637).
New Data Concerning Natural Increase and Net Migration
The birth totals in tables 3 and 4 were determined
by increasing the registered births of the GRO by 2.5
percent, whereas the registered death numbers have been
augmented for 184151 by 2.0 percent and for 185161
by 0.8 percent. Thus, the official birth numbers have been
corrected by a smaller percentage, and the registered
deaths by a little more than is usual. One obtains the size of
the natural increase by deducting the death numbers from
the birth totals. The growth of the population (obtained by
homeostatic totals) minus the natural increase indicates
the size of net migration for the period.
61
TABLE 3. Decadal Census and Homeostatic Figures for England (without

Monmouth): 184161
Variable
1841
Homeostatic population total

14,040,000
Newborn to nine-year-old females
As a percentage of all females
24.70
In absolute numbers
1,773,100
Ratio of female birth numbers in the preceding
decade to number of newborn-to-nine-yearold females, 1851, 1861
n.a.
1851
1861
16,670,000
19,020,000
24.19
2,057,400
24.46
2,385,700
1.267
1.282
Sources: For homeostatic populations, see Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics
for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new answer to old questions. Annales de Demographie
Historique: 17189, table 1, col. 4. For proportion of newborn-to-nine-year-old females, see Mitchell,
B. R. 1988. British historical statistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1112;
see also appendix A in text for proportion of newborn-to-nine-year-old females. See also table 4 for
decadal female birth numbers.
TABLE 4. Homeostatic Estimates of Decadal Changes for England (without

Monmouth): 184161
Variable
Mean homeostatic population total
Absolute number of birthsa
Female birthsb
Birthrate (per 1,000)
Absolute number of deathsc
Mortality rate (per 1,000)
Natural increased
Population increasee
Net immigrationf
184151
185161
15,299,000
5,329,200
2,606,000
34.83
3,627,000
23.71
1,702,000
2,630,000
+ 928,000
17,806,000
6,254,000
3,058,200
35.12
3,999,000
22.46
2,255,000
2,350,000
+ 95,000
Total number of births determined by number of registered births 1.025.

Number of female births determined by 1/2.045 [assumes 104.5 boys for every 100 girls born] multiplied by absolute number of births, as listed in table.
c
Total number of deaths determined by adding registered deaths and 2.0 percent for 184151 and 0.8
percent for 185161.
d
Absolute number of births minus absolute number of deaths.
e
See homeostatic population total in table 3.
f
Increase in population minus natural increase.
Sources: Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new answer to old questions. Annales de Demographie Historique: 17189, table 1, col. 4 for
homeostatic populations. See also appendix A-1 and table 1 in text for registered births and deaths.
b
The tables also contain the original percentages from the

censuses for newborn-to-nine-year-old girls. In the computations,
I also used the percentages of all females from the censuses. By
combining these data with homeostatic population totals, one
obtains absolute numbers for this age category. It is true that
proportional data are less vulnerable to errors in enumerations
than absolute numbers. Hence, for the homeostatic population
for 1841, only the absolute totals of the (age) categories of the
census are different. Their relative proportions are unchanged.3
Let us consider a related question about conversion factors, which I apply as a simple method to construct birth
totals for the period 180141 (see appendix A, tables A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-4, and appendix B). Row three of table 3 gives
the ratios of female births during each ten-year interval to the
total number of newborn-to-nine-year-old females between
1841 and 1861. For this method, I assume that changes in
childrens mortality were the same as changes in the mortality for people of all ages. However, this seems a shaky
assumption for the mid-century data because, according to
table 4, the overall mortality rate decreased from 23.71 per
1,000 in 184151 to 22.46 per 1,000 in 185161 (a 5.3 percent decrease), but the conversion factors for female births
in row three of table 3 rose for those intervals from 1.267 to
1.282 (0.85 percent).
62
The discrepancy between the trend in mortality and the

trend of the conversion factors might be caused by deficiencies in the data. So the influence of Irish immigration in the 1840s, particularly from 1846 onward, seems
to have been underestimated. As previously observed,
in 1851, almost 6 percent of Englands population,
including the newborn-to-nine-year-old children, were
Irish immigrants who arrived during the previous ten
years. I estimate that only one-third of their children
were born in England and that the remainder had been
born elsewhere. However, all female children, wherever
their place of birth, figured in the group of newborn-tonine-year-old girls, which implies that the birth totals in
184151 in relation to the conversion factor for 184151
are about 4 percent too low, because my method assumes
that all children younger than ten years old who lived in
England in 1851 were born there. My method does not
explain the remaining difference of 2.6 percent (6.6 percent 4.0 percent). In 1861, not more than an estimated
0.25 percent of the newborn-to-nine-year-old children
were born abroad.
The mortality/birthrate discrepancy does not appear in
any other decade from 1801 to 1851 because the birth
totals then changed according to the following equation (see
appendix A, table A-2).
Consider CFi + n / CFi = Mi + n / Mi , where conversion
factor CFi = bi / cyei and mortality Mi = 100 di / pi
i = ten-year interval; here i = 184151, i + 1 = 185161
ei = end of interval; here ei = 1851, ei + 1 = 1861
bi = births in interval i,
di = deaths in interval i,
pi = population of interval i, and
cyei = group of newborn-to-nine-year-old children at the
end of interval i.
According to my estimate, 4 percent of the group cyei
in the 1851 census was composed of children born outside
England. The percentage is 0.25 for the newborn-to-nineyear-old age group in 1861. Thus, in the equations for both
intervals, birth and death numbers have to be increased
to the same degree as the cei groups, which are too high
because of migration. Consequently,
CFi + 1 / CFi = (1.0025 bi+1 / cyei+1) / ( 1.04 bi / cyei)
= Mi + 1 / Mi = (100 1.0025 di+1 / pi +1 ) / (100 1.04
di / pi).
More generally,
(bi + 1 / cyei + 1) (cyei / bi ) = (di+1 / pi+1 ) ( pi / di), and
therefore,
bi + 1 = bi (cyei+1 / cyei ) (di+1 / pi +1) (pi / di).
Thus, insofar as birth and death figures are equally
imprecise, a CF formula depending on death rates may
be applied to project birth numbers. Using this formula, I
extrapolate birth numbers of an interval (bi) to other intervals by means of relevant data of newborn-to-nine-year-old
girls and of mortality data in appendix A for the first four
decades of the nineteenth century.
HISTORICAL METHODS
Appendix A offers data concerning births, deaths, natural

population increases, and net migration for England (without Monmouth) in the period between 1801 and 1861. The
results appear to be robust, whereas the crude birthrates
move between 34.8 and 36.0 per 1,000, a level that Farr
(1974) considered characteristic for the time he headed
the GRO. Besides, for 180131, the birth totals exceed the
numbers of baptisms in the Anglican parishes, as published
by John Rickman (see Wrigley and Schofield 1981, 135,
140), by 23 to 25 percent, and the death totals outnumber
the parish burials by about 30 percent (see appendix A,
table A-2, specifically the rows titled all new births or
baptisms from parish registers and total deaths divided by
burials in parishes). My series contrast sharply with those
of T. D. Hollingsworth (1969, 34551) and Wrigley and
Schofield (1981), who estimated birthrates of 41 per 1,000
or higher for the first two or three decades of the nineteenth
century. Although recent authors still accept these rates (see
Hinde 2003, 221), Wrigley and Schofield have qualified
their original position. In Wrigley et al. (1997, 544), the
authors acknowledged that there are compelling reasons to
take a different view of mortality in the early decades of the
nineteenth century from that taken previously. That is, their
estimate of mortality for the years around 1820 was too
high. But if this is correct, then their birth data must also be
wrong. More generally, Wrigley and Schofields (1981) use
of life tables drawn from other times and places, instead of
exclusively relying on the kind of arithmetic in tables 3 and
4 and appendix A, may introduce error into their tables.
Comparing Migration and Population Numbers
The low homeostatic population total for 1841 and a
lower natural increase for the 1840s and 1850s, resulting
from lower birth numbers, seen in tables 5 and 6, imply
that a huge migration into England must have occurred during the 1840s. In table 6, my data concerning population
growth, natural increase, and net migration are compared
with contrasting data from Wrigley and Schofield (1981).
According to these authors, emigration exceeded immigration over the whole period from 1801 to 1861, with net
emigration amounting to 948,000 in total. My data present a more differentiated picture of that time. Only two
decades180111 and 183141show a net loss, together
amounting to 277,800 people. The other four decades experienced a net migration of 1,213,100 persons. For the whole
period there is, on balance, a gain of 935,300 migrants in
the homeostatic model.
The divergence with Wrigley and Schofield (1981) is
especially striking for 184161. According to the Cambridge Group, the dominant authority in their country,
on whose data Wrigley and Schofield rely, England lost
466,800 inhabitants by migration in the two decades after
1841 (see table 7), whereas my data suggest a gain of
1,022,400 inhabitants in that time frame. The difference in
63
TABLE 5. Demographic Growth in England (without Monmouth): 180161

Variable
1801
1811 1821
1831
1841
1851
1861
Homeostatic population (in millions)
8.86
9.64 11.07 12.57 14.04 16.67 19.02
Wrigley and Schofield estimated

population (in millions)
8.66
9.89 11.49 13.28 14.97 16.74 18.94
Census population (in millions)
8.32
9.49 11.20 13.01 14.87 16.81 18.81
Homeostatic population /
census population
1.065 1.016 0.988 0.966 0.944 0.992 1.010
Wrigley and Schofield

estimated population /
census population
1.041 1.042 1.026 1.021 1.007 0.996 1.006
Sources: For homeostatic population totals, see Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics
for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new answer to old questions. Annales de Dmographie
Historique 1993:17189, table 1, col. 5. For other population numbers, see Wrigley, E. A., and R. S.
Schofield. 1981. The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 524, 59596. See also tables 3 and 4 and appendix A in text.
the two estimates is almost 1.5 million, which is explained

by two factors: Wrigley and Schofields (1981) projected
natural increase exceeds my figure by 480,000 births, but
their population increase in 184161 remains more than 1
million below the number that I calculated. Although they
start in 1841 with 14.97 million inhabitants and I begin
with no more than 14.04 million, the respective population
numbers for 1861 differ little (see table 7). The population
totals for 1841 are the principal source of the large discrepancies described.
Evidence of UK Migration
The United Kingdom: Censuses and Other Evidence
This new evidencehomeostatic population totals and only
slightly corrected official birth and death numbersraises the
question of how the different migration totals for England fit
within the larger statistical context of the United Kingdom,
which in the nineteenth century included Ireland in its entirety,
and within the statistical data of the United States, which provided the main destination for immigrants at that time. First,
I examine the United Kingdom. Table 7 contains figures concerning population, population growth, natural increase, and
net migration between 1841 and 1861 in the different countries
of the United Kingdom. For the mostly official data in table
7, I use census population numbers. The natural increase for
England is deduced from the registered births and deaths in
table 1. Information about natural increase was scarce for most
countries, so that the survey could not be compiled without
estimates. To construct table 7, some data regarding the natural
growth are assumed to be analogous to corresponding figures
for other parts of Great Britain, which I indicate.
According to governmental birth and death registration, the natural increase for Scotland was 13.2 per 1,000
inhabitants from 1855 to 1860 (Mitchell 1988, 45, 54).
Comparing this with the English data (see table 4), which
show a natural increase of about 1.6 per 1,000 higher in
185161 than it was 20 years earlier, I assume an average
increase of 12.4 per 1,000 for Scotland from 1841 to 1861.
Applied to an average population number of 2,865,000, that
proportion gives a total increase of 710,000. The Scottish
proportion of 12.4 per 1,000 is also used for establishing the
natural increase of Wales. For Ireland, official data concerning natural increase are not available before 1864. Then it
amounted to 9.0 per 1,000 per year (Mitchell 1988, 47, 54).
I estimate the natural increase for that country in 1841 to be
about 11.0 per 1,000 inhabitants, as I subsequently explain.
Thus, I provisionally assume an average level of 11 per
1,000 for the period from 1841 to 1846, gradually declining between 1846 and 1861 to 9 per 1,000 (see explication
in table 7). This approach leaves the effects of epidemic
mortality during the potato famine in the second half of
the forties aside. Finally, all net migration numbers have
been established as the differences between the population
growth and the natural increase.
I borrowed or (partially) derived some values for England
in table 7 from Wrigley and Schofields (1981) data. In
table 6, I included their numbers concerning the population
and the natural growth for England with the figures for England and Wales and in the totals for the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, in table 7, there are different figures based on
the homeostatic model, drawn from table 3 and table 4.
I calculated net migration in table 7 as the difference
between population growth and natural increase. A comparison of the figures in the net migration column highlights the
n.a.
Percentage
increase
relative to
previous
decade
254,600 53,100
1.2831
n.a.
1.231
57,500
1.3725
11.8
1.43
1.3668
14.2
1.5
1.9325
15.6
1.79
1.4932
12.6
1.47
1.8783
12.7
1.69
Nusteling W&S
183141
1.7023
15.2
2.63
2.0044
11.8
1.77
Nusteling W&S
184151
2.2553
16.4
2.35
Nusteling
184161
2.4324
13.1
2.2
3.957
n.a.
4.98
4.4368
n.a.
3.97
W&S Nusteling W&S
185161
9.2246
n.a.
10.16
Nusteling
11.228
n.a.
10.28
W&S
180161
97,300 133,200 142,500 23,200 188,300 927,700 234,400 94,700 232,400 1,022,400 466,800 935,400 948,000
1.6973
16.2
1.6
W&S
182131
Nusteling W&S Nusteling
181121
Note. 184161 data, the period of the potato famine, is in boldface.

Sources: Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 524, 59596. See also table 4
and appendix A in text.
Net
migration
Natural
increase
(in millions) 1.0346
0.78
Nusteling W&S
Population
increase
in absolute
numbers (in
millions)
Variable
180111
TABLE 6. Comparison of Nustelings Estimates and Wrigley and Schofields (W&S) Estimates of Demographics in England (without Monmouth): 180161
64
HISTORICAL METHODS
65
TABLE 7. Population Totals, Population Growth, Natural Increase, and Net Migration within the United Kingdom (in
Millions): 184161
Population total
Country
Ireland (whole)
Census total
Scotland
Census total
Wales
Census total
England
Census total
Cambridge
Homeostatic
Nusteling
England and Wales
Census total
Cambridge
Homeostatic
Nusteling
Total UK
Census total
Cambridge
Homeostatic
Nusteling
Revised UK
total (% of
census total)
Cambridge
Homeostatic
Nusteling
1861
(% of 1841 pop.)
Population
Natural
Net
increase, 184161 increase, 184161 migration, 184161
1841
1851
1861
8.175
6.553
5.799
0.71
2.376
1.443
3.819
2.620
2.889
3.062
1.17
0.442
0.710
0.268
1.042
1.116
1.242
1.19
0.200
0.280
0.080
14.872
14.97
14.04
16.812
16.74
16.67
18.834
18.94
19.02
1.27
1.27
1.35
3.962
3.97
4.98
3.778
4.44
n.a.
3.957
0.1842
0.47
n.a.
1.0224
15.914
16.012
15.082
17.928
17.856
17.786
20.076
20.182
20.262
1.26
1.26
1.34
4.16
4.17
5.18
4.06
4.72
n.a.
4.237
0.1042
0.55
n.a.
0.9424
26.709
26.807
25.87
27.370
27.298
27.228
28.937
29.043
29.12
1.083
1.083
1.13
2.228
2.236
3.246
6.211
6.873
n.a.
6.390
3.983
4.637
n.a.
3.144
1.004
0.969
0.997
0.995
1.004
1.006
1.00
1.043
1.004
1.457
1.107
n.a.
1.029
1.164
n.a.
0.789
Note. Irish natural increase 184161 = (0.011 [assumed annual birth surplus] 5 [184145 interval] 8,257,500 [average population, 184145])
+ ([0.011 + 0.009] [assumed birth surpluses 1845 and 1861] / 2 15 [184661 interval] 6,576,500 [average population, 184661]) = 454,100
+ 989,000 = 1,443,000. I base the computation of the average population, 184161, on the census totals and an estimated 1846 population of
8,340,000 inhabitants. Thus, the 184146 population = (8,175,000 [census 1841] 8,340,000 [estimate 1846]) = 8,275,000, and the 184661
population = (7,993,000 [184651] + 6,356,000 [185156] + 5,979,000 [185661]) / 3 = 6,576,000, for the following reason: The 184651 population = (8,340,000 6,553,000 [1851 census]) = 7,393,000; the 185156 population = (6,553,00 [1851 census] 6,164,000 [1856]) = 6,356,000;
the 1856 population = (6,553,000 [1851 census] 5,799,000 [1861 census]) = 6,164,000; and the 185661 population = (6,164,000 [1856 estimate] 5,799,000 [1861 census]) = 5,979,000. For more on the 1845 birth surplus, see text. The 1861 natural increase of 9 per 1,000 is assumed
to level with the surplus in 1864 and subsequent years, according to B. R. Mitchell (1988, 47 and 54). According to Brinley Thomas (1973, 72),
net migration could not have been much less than 589,000 for England and Wales. Direct estimates of migration may be drawn from census questionnaires (see Carrier and Jeffery 1953, 15) and corrected for an estimate of the deaths of immigrants between the censuses. I postulate the death
estimates, the mortality rates of 23.71 (for 184151) and 22.46 (for 185161) per 1,000, in conformity with table 4. This source yields an estimate
of a net immigration from 1841 to 1861 of about 725,000 persons for England and Wales, 630,000 of whom came from Ireland or Scotland. Perhaps 515,000 of these immigrants originated in Ireland. The direct estimate of 725,000 immigrants to England and Wales falls between the indirect
census estimate of 104,000 and the homeostatic estimate of 942,000, both of which appear in this table. The English census data concerning inhabitants originating from Ireland are too low to be correct for the middle of the century. Grda (1975, 148) already mentioned this discrepancy,
observing that nineteenth-century migration across the Irish Sea [was of] far greater importance than the original estimates implied.
Sources: The official population data are based on Mitchell, B. R. 1988. British historical statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6, 79, 15, 29,
31, 32, 34; and Carrier, N. H., and J. R. Jeffery. 1953. External migration: A study of the available statistics, 18151950. London: HMSO, 15. For the official
population numbers for England (without Monmouth), see Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 588. The Cambridge data for England are taken from table 6. The homeostatic data for England (without
Monmouth) are derived from the homeostatic population totals, population increase, natural increase, and net migration in table 5. See also Grda (1975).
differences between the three sources: the official statistics

drawn from the census, the Cambridge recordings of census
and population registers used by Wrigley and Schofield
(1981), and the homeostatic model. Thus, the estimates of net
migration from England and Wales from the official, Cambridge, and homeostatic sources are, respectively, +104,000,
550,000, and +942,400. Those for the entire United Kingdom are 3,983,000, 4,637,000, and 3,144,000.
Data drawn from lists of passengers on ships docking
in the United Kingdom provide additional direct information about migration. According to Brinley Thomas (1973,
3638; cf. Mitchell 1988, 5), before the steamship era,
66
HISTORICAL METHODS
small sailing ships easily evaded inspection, with the result

that the statistics on passenger arrivals and departures were
probably incomplete until the 1850s.4 It was impossible to
assemble table 8 directly from the official UK statistics. The
data available are fragmentary, and some entries in table 8
had to be calculated on the assumption that ratios between
categories based on parts of the period were the same for
the whole two decades. Thus, the ratios of destination countries and of the proportions of UK citizens and foreigners
migrating are taken from the 185362 data, which are then
applied to the whole 184161 period.
According to the passenger lists, between 1841 and 1861,
approximately 3.66 million citizens departed from UK
ports to cross the oceans, 3.043 million of whom never
returned. My data in table 7, which are based on homeostatic population totals and slightly increased birth and
death numbers, show the UK net migration for that period
amounting to a net loss of 3.144 million. The census and
Wrigley and Schofields (1981) data contain higher figures: a net loss of 3.983 million and even of 4.637 million
migrants for the United Kingdom, respectively. But how
should these different numbers be interpreted?
and Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish in 1840 in table 10

from the proportions within the U.S. populations in 1850
and 1860. The 1840 proportions are postulated to equal the
respective percentages in 1850 the ratio of 1850 percentages to 1860 percentages). The formula [proportion1840 /
proportion1850 = proportion1850 / proportion1860] requires that
the ratios for the 1840s changed to the same degree as these
for the following decade. This equation can be modified to
(proportion1850)2 = proportion1840 proportion1860, the year
1850 takes a central position. According to N. H. Carrier
and J. R. Jeffery (1953, 94), immigration into the United
States from the United Kingdom during the period from
1838 to 1863 forms a bell-shaped curve, with the year 1850
at the apex.
184853: 1,102,700
184447: 462,600
185457: 525,100
183843: 231,600
185863: 354,100
With a migration evenly dispersed over the 1840s and
1850s, the straight-line interpolation of the 1840 figures
seems justified.
Concretely, the calculation for Irish Americans in 1840
is: (4.15)2 / 5.14 = 3.35 (see table 10). For the English
and the Scots, the equations are (1.33)2 / 1.53 = 1.16
and (0.31)2 / 0.35 = 0.27, respectively. Transposition
of these results into absolute terms gives the following
outcome: 815,000 inhabitants in 1840 were born in the
United Kingdom, 244,000 of whom came from Great
Britain and 571,000 from Ireland. By 1860, the total
had risen to 2.199 million, an increase of 1.384 million.
In fact, the influx of UK immigrants was even larger,
because some of them must have died in the intervening
20 years. If a crude death rate of 25 per 1,000 is applied
(approximately the rate I use for England), the increase
of 1.38 million persons in 1860, compared with the 1840
census, represents an influx of 1.965 million permanent
immigrants from the United Kingdom.5 The U.S. data in
table 9 indicate that a total of 2.39 million immigrants
came from these countries. However, the 1.99 million
immigrants, as deduced in table 10, would not include
those persons who had returned to their native country
in the meantime. The figure of 2.39 million immigrants
American Statistics as a Check

According to table 8, 61.4 percent of the passengers who
departed from UK ports went directly to the United States,
9.4 percent went to British North America, and 29.2 percent
went to Australasia. The preponderance of America as a
destination allows me to check the UK passenger statistics
against two independent sourcesthe U.S. immigration
statistics and U.S. censuses.
In the U.S. immigration statistics (see table 9), the British
and Irish immigrants arriving between 1841 and 1861 numbered 2.39 million, approximately 6 percent higher than the
2.25 million UK citizens listed as departing to the United
States in table 8.
Other data about the homelands of the inhabitants are
included in the 1850 and 1860 U.S. censuses. These sources
permit the construction of comparable data that are lacking
in the 1840 U.S. census. I deduced the values for the English
TABLE 8. Transatlantic Migration of UK Citizens and Foreigners from UK Ports (in Millions): 184161
Passengers departing never to return
(departures minus returns)
Passengers departing from UK ports

Destination
United States
British North America
Australasia
All destinations
UK citizens Foreigners
2.252
0.342
1.072
3.666
0.187
0.030
0.089
0.306
Total
Percentage
UK citizens
Foreigners
Total
2.439
0.372
1.161
3.972
61.4
9.4
29.2
100.0
1.869
0.285
0.889
3.043
0.156
0.024
0.074
0.254
2.025
0.308
0.964
3.297
Source: Mitchell, B. R. 1988. British historical statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77, 79, 8182.
Percentage
61.4
9.4
29.2
100.0
67
TABLE 9. Immigration to the United States from the United Kingdom, the European
Continent, and Canada (in Millions): 184161
Absolute number
of immigrants to
United States (in millions)
Country of origin
Great Britain
Ireland
United Kingdom
European continent
(without United Kingdom)
Canada
Other countries
All countries
Percentage
of UK immigrants to
United States
Percentage of
all immigrants to
United States
28.88
71.12
100.00
16.01
39.44
55.45
0.69
1.70
2.39
1.66
0.10
0.16
4.31
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
38.51
2.32
3.71
100.00
Note. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1976. The statistical history of the United States, from colonial
times to the present. New York: Basic Books, 106.
TABLE 10. U.S. Inhabitants Born in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, according to the 1850 and 1860 Censuses,
with an Extrapolation to 1840
1840
N
Country of origin
England and Wales
Scotland
Ireland
United Kingdom
Total U.S. population
0.198
0.046
0.571
0.815
17.07
1850
%
1.16
0.27
3.35
4.77
100.00
N
0.309
0.071
0.962
1.342
23.192
1860
%
1.33
0.31
4.15
5.79
100.00
N
0.479
0.109
1.611
2.199
31.344
Growth 184060
%
1.53
0.35
5.14
7.02
100.00
N
0.281
0.063
1.040
1.384
14.274
%
20.3
4.6
75.1
100.0
n.a.
Note. All numbers are in millions. All information was estimated using 184060 censuses. I assume that the 1840 percentages for UK countries are
equal to 1850 percentage (1850 percentage / 1860 percentage). For details, see text.
Source: Carrier, N. H., and J. R. Jeffery. 1953. External migration: A study of the available statistics, 18151950. London: HMSO, 15.
from table 9 includes that category. If, as is assumed in

table 8, 17 percent of the immigrants returned to their
homeland, the 2.39 million in table 9 must be changed to
1.98 million to provide a correct comparison. There is a
difference of no more than about 15,000, indicating that
the U.S. statistics are remarkably consistent with each
other and are plausible.
These U.S. sources show another minor difference. In
the U.S. immigration statistics (see table 9), 71.12 percent
of the 184161 migrants from the United Kingdom were
born in Ireland. However, the U.S. censuses indicate that
75.1 percent of the immigrants were Irish (see table 10).
Which figure is more reasonable? One can imagine that the
place of origin might have been more truthfully reported
by the immigrants for the censuses than at the arrival
port. There is another, likely more acceptable, explanation
for the divergence. According to the passenger statistics
(table 8), 1.869 million British and Irish departed never
to return for the United States, whereas 290,000 went
to Canada. The 1.869 million differs by 95,000110,000

from the values in the U.S. sources. However, leakage
through Canada into the United States is a recurring topic
in immigration literature.6 The U.S. immigration statistics
include 100,000 immigrants arriving from Canada between
1841 and 1861 (see table 9). Donald Akenson (2000, 122)
stated that between 1840 and 1850, 90,718 foreign-born
persons arrived in the United States via Canada. Half
of all UK migrants to British North America (see table
8), predominantly of Irish origin, seem to have come
to the United States in the middle of the century. Thus,
the difference of around 100,000 between the UK and
U.S. values for immigration and the various proportions
for the Irish therein may have a plausible explanation.7
This suggests that the passenger data from table 8, which
indicate that only 61 percent of migrants from the United
Kingdom were heading for the United States, may be
misleading, and that eventually two-thirds or more of all
UK immigrants ended up in the United States.
68
HISTORICAL METHODS
Migration within and from the United Kingdom

The agreement of the UK transatlantic migration statistics with the U.S. sources is a strong argument for accepting
the UK transatlantic passenger statistics in their entirety. I
believe this indicates that 3.043 million people permanently
left the United Kingdom for North America and Australasia
in the period 184161 (see table 8).
Table 11 presents data concerning the transatlantic
migration from each UK country. I presume that the
different UK nationalities migrated to British America in
the same proportion that they did to the United States.
These proportions are found in table 8. John McDonald and
Eric Richardss (1997, 340, 346, 354) findings concerning
the migration to New South Wales indicate that over half
the immigration to Australasia was Irish in origin.8 Some

other information is available. Censuses show that Scotland
experienced a net population loss of 268,000 from migration
for the period 184161 (see table 7), although, on balance,
about 51,000 people immigrated to Scotland from other UK
countries (in England, there was a loss of 90,000 English and
a gain of 138,000 Irish), especially Ireland, and 3,000 more
immigrants came from continental Europe, which implies
that 319,000 Scots left their homeland to live permanently
outside Europe (see table 12). Using this information, one
can also approximate the proportion of transatlantic migrants
from England and Wales (see table 11).
To establish a more or less definitive net migration total, I
reduced the UK transatlantic emigration surplus by 105,000
to 2.938 million because of the number of foreign people
TABLE 11. Transatlantic Net Migration from England and Wales, Scotland, and
Ireland to the United States, Canada, and Australasia (in Millions): 184161
Country of
departure
England and Wales
Scotland
Ireland
Total in absolute
numbers
Total in percentages
to United States
to United States
and Canada
to Australasia
Total
0.40
0.09
1.5
0.44
0.10
1.61
0.231
0.219
0.44
0.671
0.319
2.053
1.99
65.3
2.15
70.8
0.89
29.2
3.043
100.0
Sources: See tables 8, 10, and 13 in text. The proportions of the different nationalities are the same for
Canada as for the United States. I assume that half of the Australasian migration is Irish.
TABLE 12. External and Internal Immigration Movements for the United Kingdom (England and Wales, Scotland, and
Ireland) (in Millions): 184161
External UK migration
Country
England and Wales
Scotland
Ireland
United Kingdom
Transatlantic
Other
Combined
0.671
0.319
2.053
3.043
+0.095
+0.003
+0.007
+0.105
0.576
0.316
2.046
2.938
Internal UK immigration
England and
Wales
n.a.
0.090
1.428
1.518
Scotland
+0.090
n.a.
0.138
0.048
Ireland
+1.428
+0.138
n.a.
+1.566
Total net
Combined migration
+1.518
+0.048
1.566
0.000
+ 0.942
0.268
3.612
2.928
Note. The number 2,938,000 is the net transatlantic migration minus the migration from the European continent (see table 13 in text).
Sources: Bold figures were deduced from censuses; italicized figures were deduced from table 7; underlined figures were deduced from table
11. Italicized and underlined figures were derived from table 11 and this table. The remaining figures were deduced from the data in this table.
For transatlantic migration, see table 11. The increase of foreigners in 184161 is derived from the censuses (see Carrier, N. H., and J. R. Jeffery.
1953. External migration: A study of the available statistics, 18151950. London: HMSO, 15). For the sake of comparability with the stream
data of the vital statistics and the transatlantic passenger traffic, the numbers derived from the censuses have been augmented with the number of
persons who died in the meantime. I establish the estimate as follows: 20 [years] 0.0225 [yearly mortality] (average number of the foreigners
in 1841 and 1861). See the text for the explication to table 11 about the total of 105,000 foreigners. For more on the net immigration of 942,000
for England and Wales and migration in Scotland, see table 7. The net migration for Ireland is the net UK migration (2.938 million) minus the corresponding totals for England and Wales and Scotland. The surplus of English and Welsh immigration to Scotland and of Scottish immigration to
Ireland are based on the censuses of the countries concerned (ibid., 15). These surpluses are the differences between the 1861 and 1841 numbers,
augmented by the number of people who died in the meantime. For the method used to determine the number of deceased persons, see the formula
for determining foreigners.
arriving in the United Kingdom from the European continent. In 1841, there were 46,000 foreigners in the United
Kingdom and, in 1861, 114,000, according to the censuses
(see Carrier and Jeffery 1953, 15). For the sake of comparability with the stream data of the natural increase and of
the transatlantic passenger traffic, I augmented the numbers
from the censuses with those who died in the interval. The
increase of 68,000 foreigners, supplemented by 37,000 on
account of the mortality in the intervening years (20 [years]
0.0225 [mortality, which was probably a little lower on
the European continent than the 0.0250 for the UK citizens.
See Mokyr 1983, 33] 82.2000 [average number of the
foreigners between 1841 and 1861]), delivers the sum of
105,000 (see table 13).
I postulate that the heretofore hidden movements of
UK citizens to and from the European continent, about
which information is lacking for this period, are in balance.
Probably, this movement was of minor importance. Around
1910, the net backward movement of British people from
the continent to the United Kingdom annually amounted to
no more than 750 (Carrier and Jeffery 1953, 9091).
Table 12 contains figures concerning the internal migration between the UK countries during the period 184161.
Once again, I calculated these data from the censuses.
However, I draw the value for the 1.428 million Irish settlers in England and Wales from other population data for
England, from the net migration for England, Wales, and
the United Kingdom in table 7, from the external migration
(see tables 11, 12, and 13), and from the migration between
Ireland and Scotland and between England and Scotland in
that period (see table 12). Unfortunately, the English censuses are not reliable with regard to the Irish migrants. For
example, J. Hickey (1967, 7173) concluded from ecclesiastical documents that in 1861 the Irish-born population
in Cardiff amounted to at least 10,000, which is double the
census total. In 1843, advocates for these poor immigrants
stated with great decisiveness that Liverpool housed at
least 80,000 to 100,000 Irish, which was broadly twice the
official count. When searching for work in England, most
Irish immigrants felt forced to conceal their nationality. The
circumstances were similar in London, where many Irish
also lived.9
The official censuses demonstrated a comparatively
stronger Irish migration to Scotland than to other parts of
Great Britain. According to these sources, the proportions
of the Irish-born residents had risen to around 3.0 percent
in England and Wales and 6.7 percent in Scotland by
1861 (Jones 1977, 44). This difference is curious, because
the rate of English population growth was significantly
higher than the Scottish one; nearly four times as high a
proportion of Scots emigrated to America and Australia
as Englishmen. Applying the Scottish percentage of 6.7 to
England and Wales yields 1,150,000 Irish-born residents,
instead of the 515,000 Irish migrants derived from the
official statistics. Accordingly, the total of 1.428 million
69
TABLE 13. Net Migration Movements for the United

Kingdom (England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland)
(in Millions): 184161
Variable
Net migration (including Irish excess
deaths) according to census population
and birth and death estimates
Transatlantic migration
Foreign migration
Total net migration
(transatlantic immigration
minus foreign immigration)
Net Migration
3.144
3.043
0.105
2.938
Sources: For net immigration, see table 7. For transatlantic

migration, see table 12, col. 2. Information about foreign immigration, taken from UK censuses; see Carrier, N. H., and J. R.
Jeffery. 1953. External migration: A study of the available statistics, 18151950. London: HMSO, 15.
permanent Irish migrants arriving in England and Wales

between 1841 and 1861, a total derived from table 12, is
easier to accept. Furthermore, 138,000 Irish found domicile in Scotland. Thus, 1.566 million Irish settled in Great
Britain. In two decades Ireland suffered a net migration
loss of 3,612,400 inhabitants, because more than 2 million
Irish, joined by 670,000 Englishmen and 320,000 Scots,
departed for the other side of the ocean and never returned.
Most of the Irish, about 1.50 million, settled in the United
States, 110,000 went to Canada, and about 440,000 moved
to Australasia, predominantly Australia (see table 11).
Even more emigrants from Erin, as Ireland was called at
the time, chose permanent residence in Great Britain than
in the United States, however.
Because of proximity, one would expect more Irish
migrants to settle in Great Britain than to travel across the
Atlantic Ocean. Graham Davies (2000, 19) stated: Before
1841, when mass migration had already seen an annual
exodus from Ireland, Britain was the major destination,
ahead of Canada and the United States. D. M. MacRaild
(1999, 59) confirmed the numbers I have found: In all,
between 1846 and 1852, some 600,000 Irish paupers landed
in Liverpool, of whom only just over half continued on to
America and Canada. Daviess and MacRailds judgments
differ markedly from older views. For example, according
to Jacques Dupquier (1980, 171), nearly 1 million Irish
departed to America and about half a million Irish settled in
Great Britain between 1815 and 1845. For a long time, the
magnitude of the migrant stream to Great Britain around
1850 was an insufficiently known fact in English and Irish
historiography.
For the UK countriesEngland and Wales, Ireland,
and Scotlandthe total emigration comes to 2.938 million in the period 184161 (table 13). This number differs
by 206,000 from the net migration loss of 3.144 million
70
inhabitants, established on the basis of censuses, homeostatic population totals, and vital statistics (see table 7).
The values in table 7 include, as mentioned earlier, excess
Irish deaths. For measuring the external UK migration, the
total in tables 12 and 13 are more realistic, because they
were derived from the transatlantic passenger statistics and
checked using U.S. sources and Scottish and English data.
As I previously suggested, the difference of 206,000 may
be ascribed to the excess mortality occurring between 1845
and 1851. However, evidence from other sources indicating
that the excess mortality in Ireland between 1841 and 1861
was of about this magnitude would be a confirmation of the
data that are the bases of tables 12 and 13.
Irish Population Growth and Natural Increase
To establish the number of Irish excess deaths around 1850,
one needs to know how fertility and mortality normally contribute to overall growth and net migration. If three of these
factors are known, the remaining one can be computed.
Growth and the Birthrate
Overall growth has to be deduced from the available
censuses. However, in Irish historiography the validity of
the official surveys in the first half of the nineteenth century
is questionable. Some historians maintain that the 1831
census suffered from overregistration, whereas the 1821
and 1841 censuses are trustworthy. Thomas Larcom, commissioner of the 1841 census, pointed to the possibility of
overregistration in 1831 because the census takers expected
to be paid proportionally to the numbers surveyed (Mokyr
1983, 31). However, a small minority claims that just the
reverse is truethat only the 1831 census is reliable. It is
difficult to agree with either of the parties. The arguments
presented are qualitative in nature, and until Phelim Boyle
and Cormac Grda (1986), a quantitative exploration of
this very statistical subject seems to have been almost completely ignored.10
In his frequently cited Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 18001850,
Jol Mokyr (1983, 3033) proposed that the 1831 population
was probably overstated because a comparison to the religion
census of 1834 showed a miraculous decline in 18311834
for several parishes. He mentioned the quite amazing deceleration of Irish population growth between 18211831 and
18311841 as a reason to reject the 1831 census. If one
accepts all these three censuses, the first decade saw an
annual growth of 13.4 per 1,000 but the second, only 5.1 per
1,000. Even so, Mokyr remarked that it is difficult to estimate the size of the problem of overestimation in 1831. The
censuses obviously had shortcomings, but it remains unclear
in which respect or to which extent they are unreliable. Moreover, Boyle and Grda (1986, 56) disagreed with Mokyr
and virtually all recent writers, concluding that their recon-
HISTORICAL METHODS
TABLE 14. Annual Irish and English Population

Growth Rates (per 1,000): 182141
Date
182141
182131
183141
Breakdown of famine years
183134
183441
Ireland
England
9.24
13.4
5.1
12.0
12.8
11.1
8.0
3.9
8.9
12.1
Sources: See Mokyr, J. 1983. Why Ireland starved: A quantitative and analytical history of the Irish economy, 18001850.
London: Allen & Unwin, 31; and Daly, M. E. 1981. Social and
economic history of Ireland since 1800. Dublin: Educational Co.,
4, 89, for Ireland. See Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new
answer to old questions. Annales de Dmographie Historique
1993:17189, table 1, col. 5, for England.
struction of Irish population totals supports the validity of

the 1831 census figure.
Table 14 indicates that, notwithstanding a relatively
greater expansion before 1831, the overall growth rate during 182141 was lower for Ireland than for England. Probably, the rate of increase began to decline in the late 1820s. If
one accepts the 1834 religion census, the population growth
rate between 1831 and 1834 diminished to two-thirds of the
rate of the preceding decade. By 1841, the yearly increase
of the Irish population was 4 or at most 5 per 1,000. This is
only half the growth that Mokyr expected.
However, some outcomes of Mokyrs inquiry (1983, 35
37) concerning the inclination to marry do point to a lower
population growth. In Ireland, circa 1841, the average age at
marriage was 26.3 for females and 29.9 for malesa little
higher than in the rest of Europe. Mokyr asserted that relatively late marriage was not a new phenomenon, although
a slight rise in the 1830s may have occurred. Nevertheless,
according to Grda (1994, 7172), the average marriage
age increased by 1.5 years during the 1830s. This fact partly
explains the dwindling population growth revealed in the
data based on the censuses in table 14.
Until the publication of G. S. L. Tuckers (1970) Irish
Fertility Ratios before the Famine, historians accepted a crude
birthrate of 33 per 1,000 around 1840, as reported by the 1841
census commissioners. However, the census takers had to
overcome the problem of considerable heaping (aggregation
of the returns) for children between 6 months and 12 months
old. To do this they constructed an average annual birth total
by adding all children, alive or deceased, born in the previous
ten years and dividing that sum by the corresponding number
of years. In his article, Tucker (ibid., 27477) demonstrated
that this figure cannot be right. Apparently, in the 1841 census,
age categories, such as the first month and the first year, were
confused by the census takers with ages between one and two
months or years, respectively.
Mokyr (1983) tried to construct a birthrate closer to reality.

However, his procedure for establishing a birth total at one
year is arbitrary. He multiplied the number of children aged
1 month (born the month before the census) by twelve and
added the number of children who died in 1840 at the age
of 1 month divided by two (the average age at death for
the children is more or less half a month). The outcome is
326,164 births (26,892 12 + 6,920 / 2), which produces a
birthrate of 39.9 per 1,000. One wonders why Mokyr did not
regard this number of births as too high. Mokyr (ibid., 35,
6467) collected material from parish records, showing that,
because of seasonal fluctuations, the number of births in the
last month before the June 6, 1841, census is 8 percent higher
than the average monthly birth number for the year prior to
the census. For this reason, Mokyrs birthrate of 39.9 may be
lowered to 36.9 per 1,000.
Another possibility, which is closer to Mokyrs (1983)
procedure, is to add all the age categories for living and
deceased children from 1 month old to 11 months old and
then to multiply the total obtained by a factor of 12/11
(because of month 12 having been excluded). This results
in a crude birthrate of only 30.1 per 1,000. After other
attempts, one conclusion is inevitable: the birthrate outcomes attained through these efforts fluctuate within a wide
band, ranging from 30 to 41 per 1,000. If the truth lies in
the middle, then the birthrate around 1840 should amount
to about 35.5 per 1,000, the same value I found for England
between 18001871. Certainly, Mokyrs estimated birthrate
of 39.9 per 1,000 is too high. My suggested birthrate of
35 to 36 per 1,000 finds support from Boyle and Grda
(1986, 54851, 556n2, 557n14, 561). They determined a
fertility rate for Ireland in 1841 of 36.4 per 1,000, not differing greatly from my correction of Mokyrs (1983) outcome.
I expect that the crude birthrate for Ireland in 1821 moved,
as well, to the same level of 36 per 1,000, as I explain in
appendix B.
The Mortality Rate
On the basis of his findings for the 1830s, Mokyr (1983)
estimated a crude death rate of 23.8 per 1,000 per annum for
1840 with a net migration of 7 per 1,000 for Ireland. This
mortality rate is more or less in agreement with the data that
I found for England and with the general death rate of 25
per 1,000 estimated by Boyle and Grda (1986). Mokyrs
net migration estimate is also plausible.
Crude birthrates and death rates of 36 and 25 per 1,000,
respectively (and thus a natural increase of 11 per 1,000),
with a net migration of 7 per 1,000 imply an annual population growth rate of 4 per 1,000 around 1840, differing
only slightly from the 3.9 per 1,000 growth rate shown
in table 14 for 183441. Population growth, according to
Mokyr (1983), was 9 per 1,000, which equals the annual
increase derived from the 1821 and 1841 censuses when
1831 and 1834 counts are left out. Extrapolation of the rate
71
of increase of 3.9 yields a 184546 population of 8.337 million inhabitants for Ireland. When an annual growth rate of
9 per 1,000 is applied, the result is 8.55 million. Grdas
(1979, 291) opinion was that the population totaled not
more than 8.3 or 8.4 million; the actual number would be
even smaller if deceleration continued right up to the Famine. According to the 1861 census, in the subsequent 15
years, the population shrank from the estimated 8,340,000
to 5,799,000. The result of 8.34 million inhabitants for 1846
has been used to compute a natural growth of 1.443 million
for Ireland between 1841 and 1861, as given in table 7.
In the computation, I assume the Irish natural growth (the
difference between birth and death totals of an interval)
decreased gradually from 11 per 1,000 in 1846 to 9 per
1,000 in 1861. I derive the last number from data for 1864
and subsequent years (Mitchell 1988, 47, 54).
However, this is too high an estimate for the natural
growth in 1846 and the years immediately following. It is
generally agreed that Ireland sustained a very heavy mortality. In The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History, 184552,
a classic work of Irish historiography, William MacArthur
(1962, 312) wrote that any accurate estimate for the dimensions of the mortality in these fatal years cannot be established. He considered a contemporary estimate that almost
1 million persons died from famine and concomitant diseases up to the latter part of 1847 to be an exaggeration,
although it may not be far from the truth for the whole
of the famine. Thomas ONeill (1962, 255) argued that the
1851 population of 6.6 million was 2 million lower than
the estimated size in 1845, and that emigration accounted
for just over one million of the loss but the rest was due to
deaths. Even this is an understatement. The 1851 Census
Commissioners, who extrapolated the 1841 population to
1851 with a natural growth of 10 per 1,000, found approximately 2.5 million persons missing (see Mokyr 1983, 263).
In their view, transatlantic migrants could account for only
1 million. Consequently, they determined that there had
been 1.5 million excess deaths. Michael Flinn (1977,
421) advanced a similar opinion.11 Mokyr (1983, 26266),
astonished to find the imprecise manner historians had
employed to determine the actual number of people who
died during the famine, came to the conclusion that excess
deaths for 184651 ranged from 1.08 to 1.50 million, a
figure that is higher than most modern historians suppose. Boyle and Grda (1986), on examining Mokyrs
computations, accept a figure of 1 million excess deaths.
They characterize this number as being the traditional one.
Mokyrs higher estimate should actually include averted
births. This confusing wording, originating from Mokyr
(1983; also used by Boyle and Grda 1986) probably
means children not born or marriages with lower fertility,
because of parents who had died or had left the country or
because of delayed marriages. Earlier, S. H. Cousens (1960,
64) suggested that the loss due to abnormal mortality in
184651 was something in the region of 860,000. Boyle
72
HISTORICAL METHODS
and Grda (1986, 543) claimed that E. R. R. Green (1962,

126) counted 500,000 excess deaths.
I establish here the Irish excess mortality for the period
184161 as the difference between the Irish total emigration of 3,819,000 in table 7, including Irish excess mortality, and the Irish net migration total of 3,612,000 in table
12, without excess mortality. These figures imply that the
excess mortality during the famine from 1846 until 1851
did not amount to more than 207,000 deaths. In the context
of Irish historiography, this is a very low estimate for the
excess mortality, requiring other strong arguments before it
can be acceptable.
One old statistical record that has been rejected by most
historians as untrustworthy also suggests that the Irish
excess mortality was lower than is usually believed. The
1851 Irish census mentions 192,937 persons who died from
fever in the 1840s, 125,148 who passed away from dysentery and diarrhea, and 20,402, from starvation, while 22,384
Irish died due to dropsy (MacArthur 1962, 3089). Most
of the 360,871 deaths listed were, directly or indirectly,
victims of the famine. Poor nutrition had debilitated the
physical condition of many of those who died, so that they
were more susceptible to disease. For example, the change
in diet caused by the potato shortage led to vitamin C deficiencies and sometimes even to scurvy. Furthermore, the
sick infected others in their direct vicinity. Another figure
mentioned is of 366,270 deaths, which applies to public
institutions such as workhouses, hospitals, prisons and
charitable institutions. This value also includes some who
died from normal causes, as Cousens (1960, 57) stated.
One can check the plausibility of this last number in the
first instance with a straightforward approach using the
1841, 1851, and 1861 census records of deaths in the previous decades. In the census forms, each head of the family
was asked to give the date and cause of death for household
members who had died in the past ten years. However,
as no one was obliged to give this information, the data
are incomplete. Moreover, the figures tend to particularly
underestimate deaths in the early years of each decade.

According to the 1841 census, mortality up to June 6 of
that year, when the census was taken, amounted to 68,739
deaths, whereas the 1851 survey recorded only 16,907
deaths for the seven remaining months of 1841. Evidently,
in the course of time, families forgot the exact death dates
and showed an inclination to place the death of relatives
into a more recent past (Cousens 1960, 58; Vaughan and
Fitzpatrick 1978, 241, 243).
Probably as a consequence of the famine, the returns for
the 1840s particularly suffer from this type of error. As table
15 and figure 3 show, the 184145 values are not only below
those of the preceding five years but also lower than those
ten years earlier. These irregularities did not disappear when
the numbers were normalized for changes in population size.
Even so, the available incomplete death returns are useful for
determining the excess death rate for the years 184650 by
referring to the other, more regular intervals.
Concretely, establishing the mortality of 184650 is
based on the index numbers of the deaths-to-population
ratios for four-to-five-year intervals (idpi) in 183261
(idp3235, idp3640, idp4145, idp4650, idp5155, and idp5660).
I also assume that, with the exception of 184650, the
mortality rates are accurate approximations. Mortality
was rather constant. For example, in England, the crude
death rate was about 24 per 1,000 in 181151 and about
22.5 in 185161 (see appendix A-2). By comparing the
indexes and the (roughly) known mortality rates, one can
determine the rate in 184650.
In table 15, the indexes of proposed deaths / total population (col. 5) belonging to the same intercensal period are
multiplied by each other (col. 6). This way, the wrong dates
of death given by the heads of families can be canceled. If
the level of mortality was the same in both halves of the
decade, the outcome of the multiplication will equal 1.
Further, the mortality rates for Ireland were supposed to
be equal to 25 per 1,000 in 183245 (m3235, m3640, m4145),
a value I earlier found for Ireland in 1840, and to a figure of
TABLE 15. Deaths in Ireland and Indexes Related to the Population: 183260
Date
183235
183640
184145
184650
185155
185660
Average
no. of deaths
Total
population
Average no.
of deaths /
total population
95,520
135,360
77,370
197,070
83,150
83,311
7,907,775
8,075,370
8,242,540
7,389,780
6,395,200
6,016,310
0.01208
0.01676
0.00939
0.02667
0.01300
0.01385
Index of the
average no. of deaths /
total population
0.858 (idp3235)
1.1905 (idp3640)
0.6667 (idp4145)
1.922 (idp4650)
0.923 (idp5155)
0.985 (idp5660)
idpi idpi +1
1.0214 (idp3235 idp3640)
n.a.
1.2814 (idp4145 idp4650)
n.a.
0.9092 (idp5155 idp5660)
Note. All columns have been based on annual figures. Index of the average deaths / total population for 183536 = 1.000
Sources: For population and deaths, see Vaughan, W. E., and A. J. Fitzpatrick. 1978. Irish historical statistics: Population, 18211971. Dublin:
Royal Irish Academy, 3, 243. The religion count of 1834 (see Mokyr, J. 1983. Why Ireland starved: A quantitative and analytical history of the
Irish economy, 18001850. London: Allen & Unwin, 31) was applied. I use 8,310,240 as the 1845 population figure.
73
index: 1835/36 = 1
2
1.5
1
185660
185155
184650
184145
183640
0.5
183235
Ratio of annual deaths to deaths in

183536
2.5
Year
FIGURE 3. Ratio of deaths in Ireland, 183260, according to census data related to

population size.
Sources: Vaughan, W. E., and A. J. Fitzpatrick. 1978. Irish historical statistics: Population,
18211971. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 3, 243; Mokyr, J. 1983. Why Ireland starved:
A quantitative and analytical history of the Irish economy, 18001850. London: Allen &
Unwin, 31. See also table 15, col. 4 in text.
23.5 per 1,000 in 185160 (m5155 and m5660). I base the latter figure on the view that between 1850 and 1859, the average mortality in England probably was 1.5 per 1,000 lower
than it was in the preceding decades. Moreover, the formula
that I use hereafter also delivers a mortality rate of 23.5 per
1,000 for 185059, when the computation is applied to the
mortality rate for 183039 and the incomplete death totals
for the 1830s and 1850s in the censuses. The two estimates
of the mortality during the famine crisis in 184650 (m4650)
are based on both decades.
The first estimate is based on the equation: (idp4145
idp4650) / (idp3235 idp3640) = (m4145 m4650) / (m3235
m3640). I assume that
(m4145 m4650) / (m3235 m3640) = (0.025 m4650) /
(0.025)2 = m4650 / 0.025.
Accordingly, the numbers in the next equation from the
last column of table 15:
(idp4145 idp4650) / (idp3235 idp3640) = 1.2814 / 1.0214
= 1.2546.
Thus, m4650 / 0.025 = 1.2546.
Consequently, m4650 = 1.2546 0.025 = 0.03137 or
31.37 per 1,000.
The equation of the second estimate is:
(idp4145 idp4650) / (idp5155 idp5660) = (m4145 m4650) /
(m5155 m5660).
Further,
(m4150 m4650) / (m5155 m5660) = (0.025 m4650) /
(0.0235)2 .
And from the last column of table 15, we know that
idp4145 idp4650 = 1.2814 and idp5155 idp5660 =

0.9092.
Therefore,
(idp4145 idp4650) / (idp5155 idp5660) = 1.2814 / 0.9092
= 1.4094.
Thus, (0.025 m4650) / (0.0235)2 = 1.4094.
Consequently, m4650 = 1.4094 0.02352 / 0.025 = 0.03113
or 31.13 per 1,000.
The estimated mortalities of 31.37 and 31.13 per 1,000
(average 31.20) for 184651 are nearly identical. This
agreement indicates that the incomplete census data and the
method I applied are consistent with each other. A particular
cause of extensive under-registration for the famine years,
in comparison with other intervals, might be that families
who had lost relatives were especially likely to have left
the country before the 1851 census was taken (Cousens
1960, 57). Whatever the reason, the numbers of migrants to
the United States from 1838 to 1862 show that, in general,
omissions because of migration did not affect the 1851 census more than they did the 1861 enumeration.
The second half of the 1840s experienced a mortality
of about 31.2 per 1,000. If a normal level of mortality for
this period of Irish history was between 25.0 (184145)
and 23.5 (185155), averaging 24.25 per 1,000, the excess
mortality was 7 per 1,000. That means there were 259,000
excess deaths for 184650. If one assumes a normal mortality rate was 25 per 1,000, then there were 230,000 excess
deaths. Excess mortality was not evenly dispersed over the
period, but it peaked between 1847 and 1849. Moreover, the
74
crisis was not equally rampant everywhere in Ireland, differing in time and intensity from region to region (Cousens
1960, 57). Some places may have experienced death rates
far beyond the norm.
Other values have been mentioned for excess mortality in 184651: for example, the 207,000-death difference between the numbers of Irish migrants in tables 7
(3,819,000) and 12 (3,612,000) and from the 1851 Irish
census, a 361,000-death figure for 184151, more or less
officially recognized as famine mortality, and the total of
366,270 deaths returned by public institutions to the
census commissioners. The figures from public institutions such as workhouses, hospitals, and prisons, are difficult to interpret. I follow Cousenss (1960, 57) observation: The deaths due to famine conditions can be taken as
all those recorded in public institutions from 1846 to 1851,
minus the very small average recorded for the pre-famine
years, for without the crisis . . . the deaths occurring in the
institutions would have remained roughly at the average
prevailing between 1841 and 1845. Applying the estimates shown above concerning normal and excess mortality to the deaths in public institutions, 366,270 is divided
into 163,000 deaths (that is not a very small average for
184146) and 203,000 for 184651. These numbers do
not give more insight. In this connection, what can be said
about the causes of death numbers?
The 230,000259,000 excess deaths, deduced from the
returns of the heads of the families, surpass the total of
207,000, which I obtain by comparing the Irish population and provisional Irish natural increase data with official
migration statistics, by 23,000 to 52,000. In respect to the
order of magnitude of the excess mortality, these results
are quite close, the result of a realistic, broad investigation
with approaches from different starting points. I conclude
that excess mortality was about 232,000 (the average of the
values from these three methodologies) in 184651, which
lowers the traditional 1 million figure to less than one quarter
of it. The mean crude death rate is about 31 per 1,000 per
annum for those years, instead of the commonly accepted 50
per 1,000 or greater (see Mokyr 1983, 276; Grda 1994,
18081). This death rate was clearly lower than the heavy
mortality during the famine or epidemic crises regularly
recurring in most parts of Europe until the middle of the eighteenth century. It is lower than the 34.7 per 1,000 mortality
rate that was normal for a city like Amsterdam between 1751
and 1835 (Nusteling 1985, 42, 24243).12
The Irish in England
My conclusion about the magnitude of the mortality may
be provocative, because the famine has become an Irish
nationalist paradigm for English ruthlessness. Modern Irish
historians, however, abstain from nationalist interpretations
that decry the negligent government and cruel landlords
( Grda 1994, 176). However, some of those who have
HISTORICAL METHODS
suggested that the amount of excess mortality was far below

the traditional 1 million have been criticized for lacking statistical evidence (ibid., 17479). When Roy Forster (1988,
324 and chapter 14) asserted that contemporary administrators were totally ignorant of the severity of the Famine in
the 1840s, his statement was not accepted (see Grda
1994, 175, 179) but was, as is now evident, not unfounded.
However, it remains indisputable that the Irish Potato
Famine, with its more than 200,000 victims suddenly dying,
remains a terrible period. The excess mortality, concentrated
geographically and most of the time lasting one or two years
locally, was a horror. In Irish history, it was a watershed. The
Irish were terribly shocked by the sudden disappearance of
so many relatives, neighbors, and friends. In about ten years,
nearly 4 million of the original population of about 8.3 million had definitively emigrated or unexpectedly died. The
huge, dramatic exodus of 3.6 million Irish permanently leaving their native country between 1841 and 1861 was in part
the product of aggressive capitalism. Progressive industrialization in Great Britain suffocated small manufacturers and
stimulated commercial agriculture elsewhere in the United
Kingdom. These developments, combined with the potato
failures, occasioned the flight of millions across the Irish Sea
and to other sides of the ocean.
Erins weakness in its relations with England was seriously affected by its UK membership. However, the Irish
suffered less from their neighbor than is often believed:
there was more emigration instead of a higher rate of mortality! Furthermore, England and Wales are more Irish than
most people realize. By 1841, at least 1.8 percent of the
population there had been born in Ireland; 20 years later, in
1861, at least 8 percent were Irish. If the children born after
immigration are included, 10 percent or more of the inhabitants of England and Wales were Irish by 1861.
Why was the Irish presence in England and Wales in the
mid-nineteenth century so underregistered? Why has the
Irish migration to Great Britain been so substantially underestimated and the excess mortality so inflated? It is true that
the Irish lacked an official machinery to collect complete,
reliable vital statistics about births, marriages, and deaths.
But even the supposedly superior apparatus for gathering
statistics in England was fallible: The population total in
the 1841 census was too high, and the count of Irish-born
residents in 1851 and 1861 was too low.
The 1841 overregistration, drastically increasing estimates of net emigration from England during the 1840s,
can be explained as follows: The 1841 census was the first
count executed by the Registrar General Office, which had
been founded only four years earlier, in 1837. The new
demarcation was initially imprecisely followed because districts and subdistricts deviated from those in the old ecclesiastical system. The new officials often lacked local maps
that were indispensable for their work. The counts were not
checked using marriage statistics. Homeostatic population
totals, based on extrapolation from the number of mar-
riages, together with lower natural increase data, diminish

the contribution of England in the net UK migration flow
by 1.5 million (see the difference in table 7 between the net
migration data of Wrigley and Schofield [1981] for England
and the United Kingdom and my corresponding values).
This contributes to the reduction of the traditional figure of
1 million Irish excess deaths for 184161 to about 230,000,
which I independently established by analyzing Irish data.
Other shortcomings of the English censuses also affected
the Irish-related statistics. Many Irish migrants did not
honestly answer the question about their country of origin
for fear of all kinds of prejudice. The English were upset
to see an almost unending stream of men, women, and
children who crossed the Irish Sea looking for a better life
in England. In April 1847, the London Times compared it
to a foreign invasion: The sudden apparition of 20 French
war steamers, followed by as many ships of the line, may be
less evil, less fatal, less destructive, less confounding than
the daily importation of thousands who cannot be driven
from the shore or resisted at their landing (Fitzgerald 1997,
109).13 The poverty of the many newcomers frightened the
old inhabitants of Liverpool. The Irish in Birmingham were
considered to be the very pests of society (Neal 1997,
123, 12831). The native laborers detested the unskilled
Irish workers who reduced the wage level: where the
Irish appeared, wages were lowered, respectability disappeared and slovenliness and filth prevailed, as Lord Ashley,
the future Lord Shaftesbury, publicly enunciated in 1848
(Davies 2000, 26). Another obstacle was that the Catholic
newcomers belonged to a foreign denomination, although
many gave up the faith of their ancestors (Holmes 1978,
16264; Davies 2000, 2829). Is it strange that in these
circumstances, many Irish found it better to conceal their
origin to evade a scapegoat treatment? Rightly, Graham
Davies (2000, 26) observes that too little is known about the
Irish living in Britain.
Surmounting societal prejudice, the captains of industry welcomed the arrival of the Irish because it prevented
wages from rising and strengthened the British competitive
position abroad. The great influx of Irish migrants began as
soon as a new Poor Law came into effect in 1847. This law
obliged parishes to provide for all destitute residents who
had lived within their boundaries during the previous five
years. Support was no longer the exclusive duty of the parish of origin. The new law was a strong incentive for immigration, as the government intended (Jones 1977, 4649,
5859).14 The Irish economic and demographic implosion
during the famine thus acted as a stimulus for English
economic expansion. Cheap Irish labor contributed to the
construction of a railroad network throughout the country
and large harbor facilities in the 1840s. According to Joseph
Schumpeter, the second long wave of the Industrial Revolution, stretching from 1842 to 1897, began with the railroad
boom and the large-scale introduction of steam power in the
transportation sector (see Deane 1979, 252). In that context,
75
Phyllis Deane emphasized that economic growth did not

always imply a steady improvement for large sections of
the population. However, by the mid-nineteenth century,
the majority of the English population was beginning to
experience a slow rise of their standard of living (ibid., 241,
25253).
Summary and Conclusion
In this article, I present an overall survey of the migratory
flows within and from the UK, including Ireland, from 1841
to 1861. The starting point of the inquiry was examining
statistics that I derived from marriage records, which indicated that the 1841 census population figures for England
were too high. Putting that together with plausible assumptions about birthrates and other information about Great
Britain and Ireland during the period, I found that previous
estimates of Irish outmigration were too low and estimates
of deaths from the potato famine were too high.
The United Kingdom passenger statistics appear to correspond rather well with U.S. statistical sources (see tables 8,
9, and 10). According to these records, 1,985,000 UK citizens settled permanently in the United States between 1841
and 1861. The UK transatlantic passenger values yielded
1,869,00, not including citizens who returned. Because it is
quite possible that the difference of 116,000 persons (nearly
6 percent) may be from British and Irish migration to the
United States through Canada, I consider the UK passenger
statistics a useful source for the total UK extra-European
migration flow. Data from UK censuses about foreigners
arriving from the European continent complete the picture
of migration outside the United Kingdom.
Internal UK migration numbers have also been
established on the basis of the censuses. The size of the
Irish settlement in England, however, raises difficulties
because of the inaccurate reports of Irish origin in the
English counts. Fortunately, I was able to establish the
corresponding total for Ireland with the help of net
migration totals calculated for England, Wales, and
Scotland through vital statistics of births and deaths (see
table 7). Finally, assuming that the proportions of Irish,
English, and Scottish migration to Canada equaled those
to the United States and that half of the migratory flow to
Australasia was of Irish origin (see table 11), I assemble a
survey of the internal and external migration for the three
UK countries (see tables 12 and 13).
In this context, I emphasize that the traditional procedures for solving statistical inconsistencies, occasioned by
the 1841 English census, often create more difficulties than
they remove. Unconditionally accepting the official 1841
population number forces experts to modify age classes, to
liberally increase registered birth values, and, consequently,
to expand estimated emigration. Lowering the 1841 census
population by 6 percent (1 million people) and correcting
the registered birth totals very modestly accounts for the
76
divergence between my net migration totals for 184161

a 942,000-person gainand those given by Wrigley and
Schofield (1981)a 550,000-person loss. This explains at
the same time why their data do not fit with the UK passenger statistics and the U.S. immigration statistics and
censuses. According to my figures, 671,000 citizens left
England and Wales permanently (see table 12). Wrigley
and Schofield (ibid.) assume a net emigration of 550,000.
However, they have to add at least 439,000 English emigrants to their migration total because of the Irish, Scots,
and foreigners arriving in England and Wales in those years.
I borrowed the number from the English censuses in 1841
and 1861 (see Carrier and Jeffery 1953, 15). By accepting
the 1841 population totals and increasing the numbers of
births after 1841, Wrigley and Schofield (1981) enlarged
the gap between the English demographic statistics and the
UK passenger numbers. I suggest that their solution to this
statistical puzzle was incorrect.
Table 7, table 12, table 13, and table 15 examine the
two basic demographic issues of nineteenth-century Irish
history: the size of the migration streams and the number
of excess deaths. The large number of Irish migrants is the
most striking aspect of the three tables. Table 12 shows that,
between 1841 and 1861, in addition to the 2.053 million
Irish migrating across the oceans, another 1.566 million
Irish found fuller stomachs in Great Britain. Subtracting
these migrs from the population drastically reduces the
usual estimates of excess mortality in Ireland during the
famine of 184651. In theory, the Irish net migration figures in tables 7 and 12 (3.819 million and 3.612 million,
respectively) should be more or less equal. The difference
of 207,000 must be considered an estimate of the victims of
the famine, who died over and above normal Irish mortality
during that era.
This last question must be discussed carefully,
because excess mortality is commonly regarded as being
exceptionally severe during the famine. The available
demographic statistics do not support the hypothesis of an
exceptionally high fertility in Ireland around 1840. Instead
of a birthrate of 40 per 1,000, the crude birthrate hovered
around 36 per 1,000. Crude death rates are assumed to be
25 per 1,000 until 1845. This implies a normal natural
increase of 11 per 1,000 around 1841. The discrepancy
between the measured population and the population
that would have been expected had the normal birth and
death rates of the preceding decades yields an estimate of
207,000 famine victims. An estimate of this magnitude is
confirmed by the incomplete obituary notices collected
by the census takers (see table 15). The estimates vary
between 230,000 and 260,000 excess deaths between 1846
and 1850 and agree very well with the 207,000 estimate,
the final conclusion of my investigation of natural growth
and related migratory flows. In this way, the application
of the obituary notices in the censuses validates the
coherence of my arguments.
HISTORICAL METHODS
Finally, this article confirms the tendencies in contemporary Irish historiography to afford a more differentiated
view of the famine and a less harsh judgment of the AngloIrish government of the time. However tragic, the course of
Irish events in the 1840s was less poignant and less sudden
in its consequences (see table 14) than has been assumed
for a long time. In short, during the period between 1841
and 1861, many more inhabitants permanently emigrated
from Ireland than starved in their homeland, and industrial
England is more Irish than is generally assumed.
NOTES
I would like to express my gratitude for all the help I have received on
this article.
1. J. M. Eyler (1979, 67) observed that Farrs (1974) work established
standards and techniques which became fundamental to demography and
social medicine.
2. See E. W. Cooney (1960, 259, 261).
3. For example, Wrigley and Schofields (1981) conversion factor of 1.297
in 1841 in relation to their number of girls born in the 1830s is only 1 percent higher than the corresponding conversion factor that I have calculated
by means of my conversion factor for the 1840s and my death rates (see
appendix A). However, the 1841 population total of Wrigley and Schofield
exceeds the corresponding homeostatic population by 7 percent.
4. Thomas (1973, 3638) pointed out the following flaws inherent in the
old passenger statistics: For early data, the countries of destination and
records distinguishing between UK citizens and foreigners are missing.
Beginning in 1853, separate information was given about outward movements to the United States, British North America, and Australasia, and
also the numbers of UK citizens and foreigners, although not separately.
The actual nationality of the passengers remains unknown. The passenger
lists from non-European countries start in 1855. Specification with regard
to nationality was not provided before 1876.
5. I calculated that the UK-born population in the United States was
amounting to 815,000 in 1840 and 2,199,000 in 1860. The migrants were
confronted with high mortality in the aftermath of the famine and because
of the voyage (see Mokyr 1983, 26768). I therefore assume a rate of 25
per 1,000 per annum and divide the population into two parts: the group
being permanently present (population size in 1840 = 815,000) and the
total increase in population (2,199,000 815,000 = 1,384,000). The total
of 580,500 dead is computed as follows: (815,000 0.025 [death rate]
20 [years]) + (1,384,000 0.50 [increase averaged over 20 years]
0.025 [death rate] 10 [average years of presence] = 407,500 + 173,000
= 580,500. Hence, the number of UK immigrants should equal 1,965,000
(= 1,384,000 + 580,500).
6. The Irish did not always report their true nationality in the United
Kingdom, and for the transatlantic movement, the U.S. immigration
statistics were mainly based on passenger lists of incoming ships, mostly
English (Thomas 1973, 42, 4445n3). Thomas (ibid., 42 et seq.) also provides a short description of the American statistical sources and mentions
(or takes into account) the leakage through Canada.
7. Patsy Anderson, who did a wonderful job correcting this article, noted
that this was exactly what happened in her own family. Her American
grandfather claimed Scotch-Irish ancestry, but his father lived in Canada
for 1020 years before immigrating to the United States.
8. According to McDonald and Richards (1997, 340): Notwithstanding
an active feeling against large numbers of Irish immigrants and especially
against Catholics, 64 percent of the immigrants to New South Wales
in 1841 were Irish-born. While the Irish proportion fell to 46 per cent
in 184850, there was great consistency of origins within Ireland. The
stability of the Irish element remained one of the main facts of Australian
immigration (ibid., 354).
9. See documents in the Archivio Storico of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in Vatican City (Arch. Prop. Fide). For example, Thomas
Lynham (Arch. Prop. Fide SRC, Anglia, no. 10 [184245], leaves 69495
[the original English letter: leaves 71617]) wrote in a letter dated February 9, 1845, that the official number of 49,639 Irish was much too low a
value for Liverpool because of their aversion to public censuses. The total
was at least 80,000 to 100,000. The clergyman Thiernay Ferguson (1847)

communicated in a letter dated August 12, 1847, to Rome (Arch. Prop.
Fide SRC, Anglia no. 11 [184851], leaf 466) that the Catholic churches
in London did not have the means to receive the Irish immigrants. It was
impossible to even count them.
10. Michael Anderson (1996, 209) remarked: Kenneth Cornell, the pioneer of Irish demographic history, accepted the censuses of 1821, 1831 and
1841 as the best estimates available for the period; recently, some scholars
have suggested substantial under-enumeration at the 1821, 1841 and (by
inference) 1851 censuses, though they have been happier with 1831.
Other writers have suggested over-enumeration in 1831 and have used the
remaining. . . . Joseph Lee (1981) presented a range of shortcomings in
the censuses, but his arguments are not coherent enough to calculate any
changes for the census population totals. Underenumeration, for example,
may have been compensated by overenumeration. In any case, Lees tentative suggestion that the 1821, 1831, and 1841 census populations may
have been inflated by 5.85, 1.71, and 2.75 percent, respectively (ibid., 54),
cannot be taken as a starting point for calculating the excess deaths of the
famine. Implicitly, it also suggests a population of about 8.7 million in the
early part of 1846, which would increase, without adequate argumentation,
the result of excess mortality considerably. After all, the final conclusion
of his paper (ibid., 56) remains vague: What does seem clear is whatever
the population of Ireland may have been in 1821, 1831, and 1841, it was
not that recorded in the censuses.
11. Flinn refers to Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) and Edwards and Williams (1962).
12. The Irish famine of the 1840s did not surpass the Finnish famine of
186768 because excess mortality in Finland was less than 100,000 out
of a population one-fifth the size of the Irish population in 1845 ( Grda
1994, 17980).
13. Patrick Fitzgerald (1997, 104) overly mitigates the importance of the
above quoted text by cursorily stating: The majority [of the incoming
Irish] subsequently re-emigrated to the New World.
14. Mary Daly (1981, 2021) emphasized the difficulties that the government experienced while establishing public works for destitute families:
Even today the task of employing over 700,000 people on public works
would seem daunting.
REFERENCES
Akenson, D. A. 2000. Irish migration to North America, 18001920. In
Bielenberg 2000, 11138.
Anderson, M. 1996. Population change in north-western Europe, 1750
1850. In British population history: From the Black Death to the present day, ed. M. Anderson, 191279. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bielenberg, A., ed. 2000. The Irish diaspora. Harlow, England: Longman.
Boyle, P., and C. Grda. 1986. Fertility trends, excess mortality, and the
Great Irish Famine. Demography 23:54362.
Carrier, N. H., and J. R. Jeffery. 1953. External migration: A study of the
available statistics, 18151950. London: HMSO.
Cooney, E. W. 1960. Long waves in building in the British economy of the
nineteenth century. Economic History Review 13:25769.
Cousens, S. H. 1960. Regional death rates in Ireland during the Great
Famine, from 1846 to 1851. Population Studies 14:5574.
Crawford, E. M., ed. 1997. The hungry stream: Essays on emigration and
famine. Belfast: Centre for Emigration Studies.
Cullen, L. M., and F. Furet, eds. 1980. Ireland and France, 17th20th
centuries: Toward a comparative study of rural history. Paris: ditions
de lcole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales.
Daly, M. E. 1981. Social and economic history of Ireland since 1800.
Dublin: Educational Co.
Davies, G. 2000. The Irish in Britain, 18151939. In Bielenberg 2000, 1936.
Deane, P. 1979. The first Industrial Revolution. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dupquier, J. 1980. Les aventures dmographique de la France et de lIrlande (18 e - 20 e sicles). In Cullen and Furet 1980, 16980.
Edwards, R. D., and T. D. Williams, eds. 1962. The Great Famine: Studies
in Irish history, 184552. Dublin: Brown and Nolan.
Eyler, J. M. 1979. Victorian social medicine: The ideas and methods of
William Farr. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Farr, W. 1974. Mortality in mid 19th century Britain. Farnborough, England: Gregg.
77
Fitzgerald, P. 1997. The great hunger? Irish Famine: Changing patterns of

crisis. In Crawford 1997, 10122.
Flinn, M. W., ed. 1977. Scottish population history: From the 17th century
to the 1930s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forster, R. F. 1988. Modern Ireland, 16001972. London: Allen Lane.
Glass, D. V. 1951. A note on the under-registration of births in Britain in
the nineteenth century. Population Studies 5:7088.
Goldstrom J. M., and L. A. Clarkson, eds. 1981. Irish population, economy, and society: Essays in honour of the late K.H. Connell. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Green, E. R. R. 1962. Agriculture. In Edwards and Williams 1962,
89128.
Hickey, J. 1967. Urban Catholics: Urban Catholicism in England and
Wales from 1829 to the present day. London: G. Chapman.
Hinde, A. 2003. Englands population: A history since the Domesday
survey. London: Arnold Hodder.
Hollingsworth, T. D. 1969. Historical demography. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Holmes, J. D. 1978. More Roman than Rome: English Catholicism in the
nineteenth century. London: Burns and Oates.
Jones, C. 1977. Immigration and social policy in Britain. London: Travistock.
Lee, J. 1981. On the accuracy of the pre-Famine Irish censuses. In Goldstrom and Clarkson 1981, 3756.
Lewis, J. P. 1965. Building cycles and Britains growth. London: Macmillan.
MacArthur, W. P. 1962. Medical history of the Famine. In Edwards and
Williams 1962, 263315.
MacRaild, D. M. 1999. Irish migrants in modern Britain, 17501922. New
York: St. Martins.
McDonald, J., and E. Richards. 1997. The great emigration of 1841:
Recruitment for New South Wales in British emigration fields. Population Studies 51:33755.
Mitchell, B. R. 1988. British historical statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mokyr, J. 1983. Why Ireland starved: A quantitative and analytical history
of the Irish economy, 18001850. London: Allen & Unwin.
Neal, P. 1997. Black 47: Liverpool and the Irish Famine. In Crawford
1997, 12336.
Nusteling, H. P. H. 1985. Welvaart en werkgelegenheid in Amsterdam
15401860: Een relaas over demografie, economie en sociale politiek van een wereldstad [Prosperity and employment in Amsterdam,
15401860: A story of demography, economy and social policy in a
metropolis]. Amsterdam: Bataafsche Leeuw.
. 1993. English population statistics for the first half of the nineteenth century: A new answer to old questions. Annales de Dmographie
Historique 1993:17189.
. 2005. Fertility in historical demography and a homeostatic
method for reconstituting populations in pre-statistical periods. Historical Methods 38:12642.
Grda, C. 1975. A note on nineteenth-century Irish migration statistics.
Population Studies 29:14349.
. 1979. The population of Ireland 17001900: A survey. Annales de
Dmographie Historique 27:28199.
. 1994. Ireland: A new economic history, 17801939. Oxford:
Clarendon.
ONeill, T. P. 1962. The organisation and administration of relief, 1845
52. In Edwards and Williams 1962, 20758.
Teitelbaum, M. S. 1974. Birth underregistration in the constituent
counties of England and Wales: 18411910. Population Studies
28:32943.
Thomas, B. 1973. Migration and economic growth: A study of Great Britain and the Atlantic economy. Cambridge: University Press.
Tucker, G. S. L. 1970. Irish fertility ratios before the Famine. Economic
History Review 23:26784.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1976. The statistical history of the United
States, from colonial times to the present. New York: Basic Books.
Vaughan, W. E., and A. J. Fitzpatrick. 1978. Irish historical statistics:
Population, 18211971. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
Woodham-Smith, C. 1962. The great hunger: Ireland 18459. London:
H. Hamilton.
Wrigley, E. A., R. S. Davies, J. E. Oeppen, and R. S. Schofield. 1997.
English population history from family reconstitution, 15801837. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78
HISTORICAL METHODS
Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England,

APPENDIX A
15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
TABLE A-1. Key Data for the Conversion of Female Age Groups into Birthrates in England (without Monmouth): 180161
Variable
1801
8,860,000
Homeostatic population totala
Newborn-to-nine-year-old
females
n.a.
Percentage of all femalesb
In absolute numbers
n.a.
Factors to convert newborn-tonine-year-old females into births
n.a.
of preceding decadec
1811
1821
1831
1841
1851
1861
9,640,000
11,070,000
12,570,000
14,040,000
16,670,000
19,020,000
(25.27)
1,227,300
26.88
1,503,300
(25.30)
1,609,200
24.70
1,773,100
24.19
2,057,400
24.46
2,385,700
1.325
1.203
1.261
1.309
1.267
1.282
a
For the homeostatic population totals used here see Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics for the first half of the nineteenth century:
A new answer to old questions. Annales de Dmographie Historique 1993:17189, table 1, col. 5. Calculations were based on first marriages and
corrected for illegitimate births.
b
The percentages of women in the total population are 51.38 (1811), 50.52 (1821), 50.60 (1831), 51.13 (1841), 51.02 (1851), and 51.28 (1861) and
were taken from Census for the year 1871. 1873. General report. London: George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 55; and Mitchell, B. R.
1988. British historical statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The female age groups percentages are based on Mitchell (1988, 1112);
cf. Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. Values in parentheses are estimates. For the newborn-to-nine-year-old girls in 1821, I use a proportion of 26.88 percent, instead of 27.10 percent, because of Wrigley and Schofields (1981, 108) method of assigning people with unknown ages to different age groups. The 1811 proportion for
young girls is the mean of the proportions for 182151, whereas the 1831 value is an average based on the 1821 and 1841 data.
c
The conversion factors have been deduced for 184151 as the absolute number of female births divided by the absolute number of newborn-tonine-year-old females. The conversion factors for the intervals before 1841 have been based on the 184151 conversion factor and the changes in
mortality (see table A-2 footnote f). I took the conversion factor for 185161 from table 3.
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-2. Key Population Data in England (without Monmouth): 180161
Variable
180111
181121
182131
183141
184151
185161
Mean homeostatic population total

Births of females in absolute numbersa
Births of males and females in absolute
numbersb
General mortality rate (per 1,000)c
Total number of deathsd
Natural population increasee
Population increasef
Net migrationg
Total new births divided by baptisms
from parish registersh
Total deaths divided by burials in parishes
(uncorrrected)i
9,241,800
1,626,700
10,330,300
1,807,700
11,796,200
2,029,700
13,284,700
2,321,800
15,298,600
2,606,000
17,806,300
3,058,200
3,326,600
35.99
24.8
2,292,000
1,034,600
780,000
254,600
3,696,800
35.79
22.5
2,324,300
1,372,500
1,430,000
57,500
4,150,700
35.19
23.6
2,783,900
1,366,800
1,500,000
133,200
4,748,000
35.74
24.5
3,254,700
1,493,200
1,470,000
23,200
5,329,200
34.83
23.7
3,626,900
1,702,300
2,630,000
927,700
6.254,000
35.12
22.5
3,998,800
2,255,300
2,350,000
94,700
1.252
1.254
1.232
1.285
1.299
1.307
Note. Data for total new births or baptisms from parish registers and total deaths divided by burials in parishes (uncorrected) is unavailable for the
years 183161 because of discontinuities in registration.
a
I established the values for births of females for 180141 by multiplying the numbers of newborn-to-nine-year-old females by the corresponding
conversion factors.
b
I assume that 104.5 males were born for every 100 females. Birth totals were derived from the absolute number of females.
The 184161 births were taken from table 4 (officially registered births, augmented with 2.5 percent). Together with the age data of newborn-to-nineyear-old females and the mortality rates, the 184151 birth data are essential for the construction of the birth totals.
c
For the general mortality rates of 180141, see Nusteling, H. P. H. 1993. English population statistics for the first half of the nineteenth century: A
new answer to old questions. Annales de Demographie Historique: 18081.
d
The 180141 death numbers are based on the mortality rates and the homeostatic population totals. The 184161 numbers were taken from table 4.
e
Natural increase was calculated as total births minus total deaths.
f
Population increase was calculated as the homeostatic population at the end of the interval minus the homeostatic population at the beginning of
the interval. See table A-1, footnote a.
g
Net migration was calculated as the population increase minus natural increase.
h
Absolute number of male and female births divided by uncorrected baptisms of Rickmans parish registers. Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981.
The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 135, 140.
i
For burials in parishes, see Wrigley and Schofield (1981, 135, 141).
79
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-3. Female Birth Data and Conversion Factors, according to Wrigley and
Schofield (1981): 181151
Variable
Newborn-to-9-yearold femalesa
Conversion factor
into birthsb
1811
1821
1831
1841
1851
1,294,600
1,609,400
n.a.
1,918,400
2,075,400
1.507
1.449
1.338
1.297
1.321
a
See Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981 The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 11617, 121, 58889. I calculated the 1851 female
population using a percentage of 51.02 for women. The number of newborn-to-nine-year-old girls in
1851 was calculated as 24.19 percent of the entire female population.
b
For Wrigley and Schofield, I based the 1851 conversion factor on their absolute number of (female) births
in 184151 divided by their number of newborn-to-nine-year-old girls in 1851. The other conversion factors
were adapted on the basis of their changed mortality. For the their birth and death numbers, see Wrigley and
Schofield (1981, 63536).
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-4. Key Demographic Data, according to Wrigley and Schofield (1981):
180151
Variable
180111
Average populationa 9,225,000

Total births
calculated using
conversion factorb 3,989,110
Total birthsc
3,685,400
calculated using
conversion factord
43.24
Birthrate (per 1,000)e
39.95
181121
182131
183141
184151
10,660,000
12,353,000
14,100,000
15,830,000
4,767,640
4,369,300
n.a.
4,785,800
5,089,610
5,049,989
5,604,900
5,604,900
44.72
41.02
n.a.
38.60
36.10
35.68
35.41
35.40
a
See Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. 1981 The population history of England, 15411871: A reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 53435.
b
Birth numbers were obtained by multiplying Wrigley and Schofields (1981) reported numbers of newborn-to-nine-year-old females by a conversion factor, as explained in table A-3, footnote b, and a factor
of 2.045. For the last entry, I assume that 1,045 boys are born for every 1,000 girls.
c
Wrigley and Schofield (1981, 494, 500501).
d
Value is based on Wrigley and Schofields (1981) data: The birth number derived from their reported
numbers of newborn-to-nine-year-old females (see footnote b) and their corresponding (average) population total (see footnote a).
e
Birthrates according to Wrigley and Schofields (1981) data.
80
HISTORICAL METHODS
APPENDIX B
A Note concerning Irish Fertility before 1841
Boyle and Grda (1986, 54951, 556n2, 557n14) presented estimates of birthrates in the
pre-famine Ireland of 182241, together with rates for England, taken from Wrigley and
Schofield (1981, 534). Both series show a decrease from 42 births per 1,000 in 1822 to 36
per 1,000 in 1841. In this respect, a close parallel may indeed have existed between these
UK countries. However, this raises the question of whether fertility for Ireland did not
hover around 36 per 1,000 during the whole period. In this article, I show that this was the
case for England. Furthermore, the article by Boyle and Grda (1986, 556n2) contains
the intriguing remark that the trend in fertility before the Famine remains a puzzle.
There are other reasons for expecting Irish birthrates to remain at a level of about 36 per
1,000 during a longer period before 1841. Boyle and Grda (1986, 557n14) observe:
A significant rise in infant mortality could mean that there was no decline in the actual
birth rate, but the admittedly scant evidence available . . . does not point in that direction.
In contrast, I expect that mortality was actually rising, because that is what happened in
England. Interestingly, the Cambridge Group (Wrigley et al. 1997, 29697) now admit that
after 1820, mortality for children in England increased considerably. There are indications
that this was also the case in Ireland, so one cannot exclude the possibility of a higher level
of mortality there. In Ireland perhaps even more than in England, living conditions for a
large proportion of the population deteriorated after 1820. The marriage age rose, emigration increased, and population growth significantly slowed down. Therefore, I try to adapt
the level of Irish fertility based on the changing mortality. First, mortality is assumed to
have increased similarly to the increase in England, where, according to my estimates, it
amounted to 22.2 per 1,000 in 181121 and to 25.2 per 1,000 in 183141. Second, the
crude birthrate for 1822 that Boyle and Grda (1986) reported has been modified as follows: 42.3 per 1,000 (the 1822 birthrate) multiplied by 22.2 divided by 25.2 (the 181121
and 183141 death rates, respectively) = 37.3 per 1,000 (the new birthrate for 1822). This
rough calculation is in agreement with the method applied in appendix A. The outcome
supports the probability that fertility was already about 36 per 1,000 in Ireland in the
decades before 1841.

Contentserver

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Contentserver

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Evidence Matters

HISTORICAL METHODS, Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

How Many Irish Potato Famine Deaths?

The English Census of 1841 and Irish

Abstract. The author reexamines English, Irish, and American

Keywords: birthrates, death rates, 1841 English census, Irish

he potato famine between 1846 and 1850 is a

were no regular censuses. At that time, mortality was high.

the introduction to Farrs Mortality in Mid 19th Century

FIGURE 1. Population growth in England, 17811901.

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

National income / 1,000

FIGURE 2. Annual growth of national income in United Kingdom, 17811901.

definitively.2 Therefore, the construction of about 4,000 miles

totals brings about a picture of net migration for England

TABLE 2. Different Estimates of Underregistration in

Sources: Teitelbaum, M. S. 1974. Birth underregistration in the

compared with the officially registered rate for 184150.

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

TABLE 3. Decadal Census and Homeostatic Figures for England (without

Homeostatic population total

TABLE 4. Homeostatic Estimates of Decadal Changes for England (without

Total number of births determined by number of registered births 1.025.

The tables also contain the original percentages from the

The discrepancy between the trend in mortality and the

Appendix A offers data concerning births, deaths, natural

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

TABLE 5. Demographic Growth in England (without Monmouth): 180161

Homeostatic population (in millions)

9.64 11.07 12.57 14.04 16.67 19.02

Wrigley and Schofield estimated

9.89 11.49 13.28 14.97 16.74 18.94

Census population (in millions)

9.49 11.20 13.01 14.87 16.81 18.81

1.065 1.016 0.988 0.966 0.944 0.992 1.010

Wrigley and Schofield

1.041 1.042 1.026 1.021 1.007 0.996 1.006

the two estimates is almost 1.5 million, which is explained

W&S Nusteling W&S

Nusteling W&S Nusteling

Note. 184161 data, the period of the potato famine, is in boldface.

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

differences between the three sources: the official statistics

small sailing ships easily evaded inspection, with the result

and Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish in 1840 in table 10

American Statistics as a Check

Passengers departing from UK ports

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

Note. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

from table 9 includes that category. If, as is assumed in

to Canada. The 1.869 million differs by 95,000110,000

Migration within and from the United Kingdom

the immigration to Australasia was Irish in origin.8 Some

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

TABLE 13. Net Migration Movements for the United

Sources: For net immigration, see table 7. For transatlantic

permanent Irish migrants arriving in England and Wales

TABLE 14. Annual Irish and English Population

struction of Irish population totals supports the validity of

Spring 2009, Volume 42, Number 2

Mokyr (1983) tried to construct a birthrate closer to reality.

and Grda (1986, 543) claimed that E. R. R. Green (1962,