Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 February 2009
Urban historians are much concerned with the need to study their towns from the perspective of social class and socio-spatial segregation, especially in periods of rapid industrialization. The models of such scholars as Engels, Sjöberg, Burgess, Hoyt and others are predicated on the possibility of identifying clearly the members of defined social classes. The manuscript census enumerators' books (CEBs) are one of the basic sources used for Victorian Britain (1841–81), but it is no simple matter to attribute the occupational descriptions found in them to a range of social classes. Problems occur at two levels: those associated with the conceptual validity of systems of class distinction, and those encountered in attributing occupations within such systems. As this article shows, there is also a degree of interaction between the two levels since it is useless to pursue concepts that cannot be systematically and straightforwardly related to the information available.
1 Armstrong, W.A., ‘Social structure from the early census returns’, in Wrigley, E.A., ed., An Introduction to English Historical Demography (1966), 209–37;Google Scholar ‘The use of information about occupation’, in Wrigley, E.A., ed., Nineteenth-century Society: Essays in the Use of Quantitative Methods for the Study of Social Data (1972), 191–310;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Stability and Change in an English County Town: a Social Study of York 1801–51 (1974), 14.Google Scholar We would like to thank Professor Armstrong for patiently and cheerfully commenting on an earlier draft. This is perhaps the most appropriate point at which to underline the pioneering nature of his work on York. At the time he did this so little was known about the enumerators' books that he could not have been expected to foresee the kinds of problems discussed in this article. We would also like to express our thanks to Wendy Atkin and Jim Etherington for their comments and for permission to quote their own unpublished work. We are also indebted to Susan Davies and Beryl Hazelwood for the use of census data for certain Lincolnshire villages.
2 Royle, S.A., ‘Aspects of nineteenth-century small town society: a comparative study from Leicestershire’, Midland History, 5 (1979–1980), 52;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Armstrong, , York, 92.Google Scholar
3 Armstrong, , ‘;The use of information’, 269.Google Scholar
4 Peter Tillott made his scheme available on duplicated sheets, but the best published versions are probably those in Rogers, A., Approaches to Local History (1977), 101;Google Scholar and D.R. Mills, A Guide to Nineteenth-century Census Enumerators’ Books, Open University, Course D301 Historical Sources and the Social Scientist, (1982), 36–7. Both sources also have summaries of classifications by Rogers, Everitt, Vincent, Fieldhouse, Greenall, Lawton and Patmore.
5 A summary of Anderson's definitions is as shown in Table 7. This classification was supported by local wage data. Class 7 includes hawkers and itinerant traders. See Anderson, M., Family Structure in Nineteenth-century Lancashire (1971), 26.Google Scholar
6 Royle, S.A., ‘Social stratification from early census returns: a new approach’, Area, 9 (1977), 215–19;Google Scholar and Holmes, R.S. and Armstrong, W.A., ‘Social stratification’, Area, 10 (1978), 126–9.Google Scholar
7 In Peter Tillott's unpublished document of 23 November 1966, printed in Mills, op. cit., 20. Tillott's classification was, and still is, much used in WEA classes in rural areas and small towns, where it was first used by its author.
8 In a computer package which runs on BBC/Acorn computers entitled Analysis of Nineteenth Century Censuses, available from Mills Historical, 17 Rectory Lane, Branston, Lincoln, LN4 1NA. There are also options to use the Booth-Armstrong Industrial Classification and the Registrar-General's Social Classification. Full details available on application. Some results are reported in D., and Mills, J., ‘Rural mobility in the Victorian censuses: experience with a micro-computer’, Local Historian, 18 (1988), 69–76.Google Scholar
9 There is a discussion about these problems in Tillott, P.M., ‘Sources of inaccuracy in the 1851 and 1861 censuses’, in Wrigley, E.A., ed., Nineteenth-century Society: Essays in the Use of Quantitative Methods for the Study of Social Data (1972), 116–118.Google Scholar Lawton, R., ed., The Census and Social Structure: An Interpretative Guide to 19th Century Censuses for England and Wales (1978), 73Google Scholar, reproduces the 1841 instructions, where the enumerator was enjoined to distinguish journeymen, apprentices and shopmen by the abbreviations J, Ap, and Sh, but ‘Master need not be inserted, every one will be so considered who is not entered as journeyman or apprentice’. This practice was amended for later censuses, but a bad precedent had obviously been set. Rogers, op. cit., 100, quotes Dr Ogle from the Registrar-General's office complaining in the 1880s that workmen frequently omitted to say whether they were masters or men on their census schedules.
10 Shaw, G., British Directories as Sources in Historical Geography (1982), Institute of British Geographers, Historical Geography Research Series, no.8, 31–6.Google Scholar
11 Ibid., 35.
12 Royle, , ‘;Social stratification’, 216.Google Scholar
13 Armstrong, Stability and Change…York, op. cit., 14; see also his note that Class II is the appropriate attribution for most farmers, ‘The use of information’, 225.Google Scholar In the course of preparing a bibliography of work based mainly on CEBs, Carol Pearce and Dennis Mills have noticed that attribution lists are only given in a minority of cases where the Registrar-General's 1950 scheme has been used, so it is difficult to make other comparisons. This bibliography is being published by the Institute of British Geographers in 1989 in their Historical Geography Research Series.
14 In ‘Use of information’, 215–23.Google Scholar
15 Examples of Sleaford census entries illustrating points made in the text include the following (supplied by Atkin, W., using Slater's. Directory of Lincolnshire (1851) and White's (1856)Google Scholar): (a) Upgraded from Class III to Class II John Bell, Head, Mar, one son, 27, Whitesmith (Directory states he is a carrier). William Nightscales, Head, Mar, 5 children, 47, Pipe maker (Directory states he has horses and gigs to let). Jane Pridgeon, 26, Tailor's wife (Directory states she is a dressmaker in her own right). Simon Jacob, Head, Mar, 40, Millwright (Directory states he is a millwright and machine man). (b) Upgraded from Class IV to Class III on basis of CEB entry, not found in Directories George Brien, Head, Mar, 5 children, 3 employees living in, 40, Chimney Sweep employing 1 man and 2 boys. (c) Upgraded from Class III to Class II on basis of CEB entry, not found in Directories Charles Newton, Head, Mar, 2 children, 1 Asst, 1 App and 2 House Servants living in, 48, Linen and Woollen Draper.
16 Etherington, J.E., The Sociology of Guy Fawkes Night Celebrations in the south east of England, Open University, Ph.D. thesis (1988), 367–73.Google Scholar
17 Apart from Melbourn, Cambridgeshire, we have not had rate-books to work on in our chosen communities, and this reference to them is based on Professor Armstrong's experience.
