Houses, Households and Population
The population in 1851 was 420, living in about 60 houses. The census did not record “houses”, save the name of some farms, and a few others, such as the wheelwrights. The census recorded the 420 villagers living in 89 “households”. In most cases it is difficult to identify if households listed in sequence signified neighbours or villagers sharing the same house. Some of the “house sharing” is with family groups sharing the same surname, sometimes not. Many with different surnames, I have identified to be related. Others will not be related, or the relationship remains to be identified many generations before this date. The villagers may have been a bit more squished together then, compared with today. This would be particularly the case when you consider that several of the larger houses and farms tended to have just a few residents rattling around inside. Social distancing in 1851 would have been very difficult. However, they were well used to social distancing in another dimension. I am sure that many will have started to notice this from reading the diary. More on this to follow in the diary and future analysis of the census data. Age Profile and some comparisons with today. This is based on recorded ages at the date of the census. They are much more reliable than those recorded in 1841, which seem to be largely guess work, with most over 20 assigned to 5-year age cohorts. My analysis of the 1851 census:
I was very surprised by this. I was expecting a younger profile, of course. I wasn’t expecting it to be so extreme.
Today’s profile would be totally different. Comparing changes to the Piddington age profile over time could provide an understanding of the very significant changes and rapid decline in the population towards the end of the 19th century. Before I completed this analysis, I was writing in the diary about the Lower End kids jumping on board John Freeman’s new cart for the journey down to Cowleys. It now looks like Old William Parrot will need to make another eight trips! Also, how does this change our perceptions of the sounds in the village? I doubt that Old Zachary will be able to identify all his bird calls! The 1851 age profile is very similar to the age profile of many third-world countries today. There are a number of direct comparisons that can be made with Piddington 170 years ago and today’s third-world countries: age profile, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths in childbirth, literacy and agricultural dependency all come to mind. Another constant, the immense gulf in each world, between those who have and those who have not. These are subjects that I plan to embrace as “Close to the Brook” evolves through the diary and from further analysis. In writing the diary I hope to show how these forces may have impacted upon the lives of real people. I hope that some of you are starting to know these people as neighbours in the village. A final note to lift the spirits. The youngest “Pyder” recorded in the census: - The 1-month old Thomas Parker. He is the grandson to old Thomas Parker, not to be confused with Old Jim Parker. Of course, they will be related. I may never have enough time to find out how. For the time being we will leave Thomas Parker and his family, wondering when they might start calling him Young Tom. Population totals over time The table below shows Piddington's population totals where available. More figures are available for the 19th century than there are for the 20th. If anyone can find figures for missing years, please let me know.
|
In 1851 Piddington's total polulation was 420. This was on par with Blackthorn 417. Arncot recorded 348 and Ambrosden just 172. Ludgershall: 511; Brill on the Hill: 1311 The peak of Piddington's population total was 1831 to 1851 with a quite rapid decline towards the early 20th Century. In 1901 the village had just 212 residents. I would expect the figures for 1911 and 1921 to perhaps be even lower. This rapid decline in the population can be seen in a number of local villages, but not all. I have spent some time studying this "moving away" in Ludgershall. One day I hope to see if similar forces were at play in Piddington. The growth of local towns is part of this story. Between 1851 and 1901 Bicester's population grew by 50%, Launton's by 95% and Banbury's by 120%. Employment I have undertaken a quick analysis of the stated “occupations” in the 1851 census. This was the first census that required this to be recorded. The 1841 census recorded some occupations such as farmers and tradespeople but largely ignored the lower orders. Censuses from 1861 onwards tended to use standardised terms such as “Ag Lab” or “Ordinary Labourer”. I have never seen anyone listed as an “Extraordinary Labourer” but I am sure there were many! When examining occupations, you need to be aware that many census enumerators had a tendency to “look down” at rural employment. They would hear shepherd, thatcher or cowman and record labourer. Many labourers would have been highly skilled and use their skills to advantage to try and ensure regular employment. In Piddington on 30th March 1851 the census recorded:
The enumerator (almost certainly male) decided not to bother recording the Lacemakers. The 1861 census shows 16. I would estimate that there would have been at least 20 to 25 in 1851 as lacemaking in this area was in somewhat of a decline from a peak in the early part of the 19th century. One question I have had in mind over the last few weeks: How many of the labourers were in regular employment and how many were employed on a casual basis? Each of the farmers were asked to give their acreage farmed and number of workers employed. Farmers tended to be proud of their relative standing in the village and it is unlikely that their responses were under-estimates. This provided me with a total of 37 labourers in regular employment on the farms. That is exactly half of the total number of labourers in the village. There would having been nothing casual about being a “casual labourer” back then. The demand for casual workers was highly seasonal. Even at peak hay-time and harvest time it unlikely that everyone found employment. We have to think about severe underemployment, poverty and malnutrition. Many labourers’ families would be dependent upon their own small gardens, poaching, foraging and reliance upon wider family groups. They would have done all they could to avoid the shame of having to rely on Parish Relief. |