At the start of January 2022 many of us were eagerly awaiting the 1921 Census release, so we could find out about our families in post-Great War England and Wales. I wrote about the background to this census and what type of information to look out for here.
One year on, I thought it time for me to note some findings relating to Batley generally. This includes the debate the 1921 census results caused locally in the months and years which followed their release. This was the type of debate happening up and down the country, so you may find this post interesting even if your ancestors did not live in Batley in this period. It may also be helpful if you want to compare the findings for your area of interest with Batley, an industrial Yorkshire town with a population of 36,137, whose growth over the previous hundred years was built on its textile industry. And it will definitely be of interest if your family lived in 1921 Batley, to compare them against the overall populace of the town.
Census night was 19 June 1921. It was delayed from its planned April date because of the state of emergency declared as a result of the coal miners’ strike. In the week after the census, Batley’s local newspapers reported that the enumerators were on the whole well-received across the district. Some difficulties did arise though. In many cases forms were not filled in ready for collection on Monday as specified (although the census instructions contained the originally intended 25 April collection date.) Instead some unfortunate enumerators were delayed in their duties, having to wait for them to be completed when they called round. In some cases enumerators were still collecting forms on Tuesday. One frustrated enumerator had to call ten times to get the return from one resident. Apparently the enumerators also encountered many amusing incidents – unfortunately for us they did not wish to repeat them to the local journalists for publication.1
Although there were few refusals to fill in the papers, errors and omissions were reported to have abounded, with many householders feeling the form was needlessly complex and one enumerator claiming “only about 4 per cent of the papers would be quite accurate.”2 It was also noted that with an absence of ink in many households, pencil was resorted to for completing the forms.3
So, what were the findings for Batley Municipal Borough in 1921?
When the preliminary figures came out in August 1921, there was one main headline for Batley – after decades of an increasing population, the number of inhabitants recorded on census night now stood at 36,151. This was a decrease of 238 since 1911. When the census figures were reviewed and finalised in 1923, the amended 1921 population figure was even lower – 36,137, marking a 252 decrease over 1911.4 For the remainder of this post, unless stated, I will stick with the final confirmed numbers rather than the preliminary ones released in August 1921.
This decrease was not predicted. In fact in May 1921, the month before the 1921 Census, Batley’s Medical Officer, G. H. Pearce, was finalising his 1920 annual health report for the town. In this the population for Batley as at the end of 1920 was put at 36,527 based on the Registrar General’s estimates.5This was a small increase over the 1911 Census figure. So the 1921 figure was not really anticipated.
However, in hindsight this decrease should not have been any surprise to anyone, and that was the received wisdom once the figures did come out. You have only to take a look at the in excess of 800 names on Batley War Memorial to see the impact of the Great War locally. This was recognised in the reporting analysis.
And it was not only this loss of a generation of men. There was also a fall in the birth rate during the war years, as a consequence of so many being away serving in the military. In 1914 Batley’s birth rate was 22.1 per thousand. By 1919 it had dropped to 16.4 per thousand, with a low point in 1917 of 15.7 per thousand.6
There had also been the flu pandemic which pushed the 1918 death rate in Batley up to 19.7 per thousand – with 104 extra deaths directly attributed to the pandemic that year, and a further 83 in 1919.7
In the opinion of Dr Pearce, the town’s medical officer, the combination of war losses, a declining birth rate and the hit of the flu pandemic largely accounted for Batley’s population decrease. The conclusion reached was, but for the war, there would have been no population decrease.8
And there was cause for optimism going forward, in that by 1920 Batley’s birth rate had bounced back, jumping to 24.3 per thousand.9
But broader factors had to be considered too. Local occupations also impacted on population growth. Batley was dominated by its textile industry. The 1921 Census once again confirmed this. A total of 7,885 people (3,842 males and 4,043 females) aged 12 and over were classed as textile workers. This equated to 296 male workers per 1,000 and 622 female workers per 1,000 occupied in this industry. To this should be added a further 599 individuals (14 males and 585 females) involved in rag, bone and bottle sorting, which fell under a different occupational classification – and a significant proportion of these would be rag sorters for the local mills. The textile industry was way ahead of Batley’s second employer, the mining and quarrying sector, which accounted for 1,688 males. I will cover Batley occupations in detail in a separate post at a later date.
In general terms in Yorkshire it was found mining-dominated districts had increased in population between 1911 and 1921, whereas those where the textile industries were paramount had remained practically stationary in population compared to 1911.10
To demonstrate the difference in population growth between 1911 and 1921 in mining and textile districts, the Yorkshire Post of 24 August 1921 compared the West Riding districts of Bingley, Elland, Golcar, Saddleworth, Shipley, Skipton and Sowerby Bridge, where textile industries were dominant, with eight West Riding mining districts of similar size – Bentley-with-Arksey, Bolton-on-Dearne, Castleford, Mexborough, Stanley, Wath-on-Dearne, Wombwell and Worsborough. These textile areas had a total population of a little over 100,000 in 1911, and by 1921 this had fallen by 19. In contrast the mining areas had a population increase of 16,566, or over 15 per cent, three times as great an increase than for the whole county.
One reason given for this difference was something said to be well-known in official circles – textile operatives had very much smaller families than many classes of working people.11
And the war even played a part in population growth in certain areas between 1911 and 1921. Wartime industries drew people into areas such as Barrow-in-Furness and other locations associated with heavy industry. Sheffield, for example, had an inrush of munitions workers. These workers boosted the population, and post-war there was no corresponding mass exodus due, it is said, to problems for these workers in moving and securing houses elsewhere. This in part was the explanation for why Sheffield had a population increase of around 30,000 between 1911 and 1921. In contrast, any new wartime industries brought to Batley though were relatively small, and the area was not a population importer during the war, focussing on what it always did – textile manufacture.12
Industrial environment also had an impact on sex distribution, with men generally outnumbering women in the mining areas. The same Yorkshire Post survey of mining/textile districts referred to earlier, showed that in the seven textile towns there were 1,202 females to 1,000 males; in mining towns only 938. This is born out when looking specifically at Batley, where this figure was 1,171 females per 1,000 males, an increase over the 1911 female/male ratio of 1,149:1,000. Essentially textile areas drew in women who could undertake the type of work offered in mills, and this also helped retain the existing female population. In mining dominated areas there was less work to draw in women, and there was a push away for local women seeking work.
Housing – or rather lack of it – brought into sharp focus another issue for Batley, where it was argued overcrowding limited population growth and was a factor in the 1921 census figures. The housing dilemma had been perceived as a problem for many years in Batley, with the levels of overcrowding described as considerable. Dr Pearce pointed out that the Registrar General’s analysis from the 1911 census was 19.3 per cent of Batley residents were living in overcrowded conditions, based on the standard of more than two people per room.13 Though this had improved – in part due to the war and men being away on military service – it was still a problem. Yet despite it, only 24 houses had been built in Batley between 1916 and 1920.14 In fact, because of the lack of progress, in November 1919 the Housing and Town Planning Committee passed a resolution that 500 houses be erected in Batley.15
There were also problems around the type of housing, as highlighted in the Medical Officer’s annual report in 1920. The town had few middle class type dwellings. Essentially the housing stock was split between working class dwellings and mansions, with the former predominating. Many of these working class houses were back-to-back, consisting of only two rooms, one above the other, and built in long rows. As for their condition, many had damp problems as a result of defective roofs, walls or absence of damp proof courses, lack of light and defective ventilation. Sanitary standards also lagged behind modern ideals, with hundreds of water closets being shared by the occupants of two dwelling houses. There were also still large numbers of brick fixed receptacles for ashes and refuse, rather than the preferred covered metal ash bins.
The housing shortage was even said to have prevented many from getting married.16 The housing problem was seen as a long-term brake on population growth, especially if road transport developed as was expected, which would mean some moving out from the crowded centres. Already a good many miners employed in Batley Borough lived outside the area.17 Dr Pearce was of the view that if more houses were built, more people would live in Batley.18
However, even in the years immediately after the census there was a clear lack of action. When Dr Pearce issued his Medical Report for 1924 he pointed out the 1919 Batley Town Council housing programme of 500 new houses still had not yet been fulfilled. And in the meantime the situation had worsened – Dr Pearce now estimated that Batley needed 2,000 more houses.19
There was one other major factor which many blamed for Batley’s population decline in the 1921 census – timing. As I pointed out at the beginning census night was 19 June 1921. Although attempts were made to avoid the holidays in the big industrial towns of the north, it was inevitable that some were away. One unnamed Batley official went as far as to say the whole of Batley’s decrease might be accounted for by this.20 A quick look through the Batley returns shows a raft annotated with phrases such as “not at home” or “away from house”. Official statistics show 212 Batley dwellings were vacant on census night. With 9,509 recorded as occupied, that is around a 2.2 per cent vacancy rate. In cases where the census form is annotated “not at home” etc., it is as well to also check the address page as this may give the occupier’s name. And it is true that the seaside resorts of Blackpool, Scarborough, Whitby, Filey, Hornsea, Saltburn and the like had noticeably swelled numbers when compared to 1911.
A few other interesting information snippets from the 1921 Census Batley details.
The impact of the war was reflected in some entries of men who had returned. For example 36-year-old Adam Gregory’s occupation is “an ex-soldier under treatment.”21 23-year-old John William Boot’s occupation entry reads “Disabled during the Great War.”22 Dennis Kennedy, from the Batley St Mary’s One-Place Study, has a similar occupation entry, “Disabled at war unable to work.”23 Whilst 31-year-old John Lynch, a coal miner by trade, was also unable to work. His former coal-mining occupation is scored through and replaced by “Disabled Soldier.”24
The census also included a new question around orphanhood, with entries for children under 15 having to state if both parents were alive, if the father was dead, the mother dead or both parents dead. The Great War had an impact here. In Batley of the 9,303 children in this under 15 category, 698 had dead fathers, the mother had died in 196 cases, and 34 children had lost both parents. A further 105 replied not known, or had left this section incomplete. It did mean though that 8,270 children had both parents alive. However, it was acknowledged that there were issues with how census forms were filled in for this new question.
This census also included a question for the first time around marriages dissolved by divorce, in recognition of its increased availability. 16,682 people in England and Wales declared themselves so. In Batley, according to the official figures, this amounted to three men and five women. Table 1, below, taken from the 1921 Census, shows Batley’s population by marital condition. It also shows the age splits between males and females.
Table 2 looks in graphical form at the percentage male/female age split, including the lost Great War Generation differences.
In terms of age, the average age of males in Batley was 30.5, and females 30.6.
To draw all this together here are some more Tables illustrating different Batley population aspects based on the 1921 Census, and in some cases with comparisons to 1911 to show the changes. Tip, if the font is too small to read, click on the Table to bring up a new screen with an enlarged version.
Table 3 shows the housing of private families in Batley in 1921, with a comparison to the 1911 census.
In Batley there were 0.85 people per room in 1921, compared to the County average of 1.04. In Batley there was an average of 3.85 persons per family in 1921 compared to 3.97 in 1911. There was an average of 3.29 rooms per dwelling, so towards the lower number in comparison with other areas of Yorkshire – Leeds for example was 4.19, Dewsbury 3.42. Though Birstall, at 3.21, was lower. Note rooms covered the usual living rooms, including bedrooms and kitchens, but excluding sculleries, landings, lobbies, closets, bathrooms, or any warehouse, office or other shop rooms. On the plus side the percentage population living in more than 2 persons per room had dropped from 19.3 per cent in 1911 to 18.8 in 1921, and all this equated to a 27 per cent deficiency in rooms. Although not at as bad as, for example, Birstall at 22.6 per cent (room deficiency of 28.9 per cent) or Birkenshaw at 21.8 (room deficiency of 30.1 per cent), it was worse than Dewsbury’s 18 per cent (room deficiency of 24.2) or at the other extreme Ilkley with a room surplus of 27.8 per cent. And saying that Batley’s population was far higher then Birstall, Birkenshaw or Ilkley.
Table 4 shows Batley’s population in 1921, with comparisons to previous censuses. This table clearly illustrates the small decline in population between 1911 and 1921, after a growth in the 1901-1911 decade.
Table 5 shows the acreage, population, private families and dwellings statistics for Batley. Here you can clearly see the differences between the areas in Batley, with the North and Soothill Wards having a large acreage with a comparatively small population, whilst the West and East Wards have far less land, but contain a much larger population. For example the East Ward, being the most densely populated, has 33.7 people per acre, compared with the overall Batley average of 11.2.
Table 6 contains analyses of the buildings and structurally separate dwellings in Batley in 1921. The upper part of the table looks at the classes of buildings (split between five groups). The lower part of the table is split into two parts. The left looks in at Group V buildings. Whilst in the right-hand side the analysis according to dwellings is continued in respect of certain selected classes of private family occupation. Note 212 dwellings were vacant on census night.
Table 7 contains an analysis of the private families within Batley according to the number of persons in the family, and the number of rooms occupied by the family.
Table 8 illustrates the number of people in Batley attending educational establishments. These are split by age, sex and whether attending school full or part time.
The final series of tables – Table 9, 10 and 11 – are different ways of displaying the previous datasets. These are as set out in the 1923 Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health, G. H. Pearce.
These overall statistics for Batley, and other statistics gathered as the study progresses, including the additional detail around occupation, will enable comparisons to be made for the Catholic population against the overall population of the town. For example looking at the number of people per family, the number of people per room etc., or comparing the Catholic and non-Catholic population on an individual street or two similar sized streets. Also did those who worked in the textile industry really have smaller families than those from, for example, mining families?
One final point to note for family historians looking for ancestors in Batley. There are issues with the Batley census returns. If you cannot find your family in this census it may be because some household returns were damaged and have not been indexed by Findmypast. It is worth trying workarounds to look at the images. I have had success for example searching by address – and although the writing was faint and therefore not indexed, I have been able to work out sufficient portions to confirm it was the family I was seeking and add to my knowledge of them.
Postscript:
Finally a big thank you for the donations already received to keep this website going.
The website has always been free to use, but it does cost me money to operate. In the current difficult economic climate I am considering if I can continue to afford to keep running it as a free resource, especially as I have to balance the research time against work commitments.
If you have enjoyed reading the various pieces, and would like to make a donation towards keeping the website up and running in its current open access format, it would be very much appreciated.
Please click here to be taken to the PayPal donation link. By making a donation you will be helping to keep the website online and freely available for all.
Thank you.
Footnotes:
1. Batley Reporter, 24 June 1921 and Batley News, 25 June 1921.
2. Batley Reporter, 24 June 1921.
3. Batley News, 25 June 1921.
4. The official 1911 census figures for Batley’s population was 36,389. However, in several Medical Officer reports it is consistently put at 36,395. I have stuck with the official figures.
5. Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Year 1920 – G. H. Pearce.
6. Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Year 1919 – G. H. Pearce.
7. Ibid.
8. Batley Reporter, 26 August 1921 and Batley News, 27 August 1921.
9. Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Year 1920 – G. H. Pearce.
10. Yorkshire Post, 24 August 1921.
11. Batley Reporter, 26 August 1921.
12. Ibid.
13. Batley News, 27 August 1921.
14. Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Year 1920 – G. H. Pearce.
15. Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Year 1919 – G. H. Pearce and Batley Reporter, 26 August 1921
16. Batley Reporter, 26 August 1921
17. Batley News, 27 August 1921
18. Ibid.
19. Borough of Batley Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Year 1924 – G. H. Pearce
20. Batley News, 27 August 1921
21. 1921 Census, The National Archives (TNA), Ref RG15/22341/30
22. 1921 Census, TNA, Ref RG15/22328/306
23. 1921 Census, TNA, Ref RG15/22346/7
24. 1921 Census, TNA, Ref RG15/22345/160
PastToPresentGenealogy 