Northern Industrial Slums: The Working Class and the Great War

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SiegeGunner said:

Re the liability of Irishmen to conscription, I thought it was only Irishmen living in Ireland who were exempt, and Irishmen living in England were subject to conscription.  Would that have applied to Irish workers who came over to Britain to work during the war, or did they retain their exemption.

 

Come to think of it, another question:  were all men permanently resident in Ireland exempt from conscription, or only those of Irish ancestry? 

 Liability was based on 'normal residence' in Aug 1915. Meaning expatriate Irishmen living in England, Scotland and Wales couldn't scoot when the MSA came into force. A significant proportion of 'Irish' in GB were in fact born in England, Scotland and Wales as second and third generation offspring. It is one of the reasons why calculating the number of Irishmen is so tricky. 

 

MG

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Phil Wood]

This thread prompted me to compare my own town - Newbury in soft southern Berkshire with a northern town.  I picked on Accrington - where all those pals were lost.

 

I looked at them in a very crude manner - comparing their 1911 populations and the number of names on their great war memorials.  The result surprised me.

 

Newbury 339 casualties, population 12107 - casualty ratio 2.8%

Accrington 865 casualties, population 45029 - casualty ratio 1.9%

 

I know that names on a war memorial is a poor measure of casualties, nevertheless this seems to suggest that the southern slums made a greater sacrifice than the nothern ones. How could this be?  Did the more industrialised town have a higher proportion of younger men exempt from conscription? DId Newbury had a higher proportion of junior officers?

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, SiegeGunner said:

Re the liability of Irishmen to conscription, I thought it was only Irishmen living in Ireland who were exempt, and Irishmen living in Britain were subject to conscription.  Would that have applied to Irish workers who came over to Britain to work during the war, or did they retain their exemption.

 

Come to think of it, another question:  were all men permanently resident in Ireland exempt from conscription, or only those of Irish ancestry? 

 

      I believe they maintained their exemption if they had an Ireland home address. Many Irish workers in the century before the war were seasonal- as Ireland has more of a temperate maritime climate than mainland UK, the harvest is at a different time. I think there was a time limit  on stay but I stand to be corrected on this.  Of course, the Ministry of Munitions effectively controlled the exemptions but my memory of work a long time ago is that direct Irish workers were regarded statistically as "gastarbeiter" whatever the political realities of the situation were come 1916-17.

      And to take up Martin's point about "Irishness" of second and third generation, then I believe it was birth plus home address that counted.  There is an interesting Min.Munitions file at Kew on those seeking shelter in Ireland towards the end of the war. Here, it seems that the work of Port Control Officers came into play- just how many men were prevented from travelling to Heibernia?  And, of course, an intriguing minor sidelight in all of this is the status of Allied nationals -  there were a whole series of inter-allied agreements to force Allied nationals to serve-either in GB forces or repatriated/deported to Allied regimes where conscription was the norm. Just what happened to Allied nationals  with regard to these agreements is a complete unknown to me. The agreements were whole GB so it should have been that Allied nationals were forced to leave or were open to conscription. An unknown

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, PhilB said:

Is it possible to draw any comparisons between the general conditions of the working classes in the industrial and in the agricultural areas of the country at that time? I'm assuming that the country can be roughly divided into one or the other.

 

I recall, some years ago, attending a lecture at the National Archives (at the time that the surviving Soldiers' records were released) at which the speaker commented on the depths of rural poverty in late Edwardian Britain. My paternal g-father (a Carrier by trade) might illustrate this: he was 5' 7", weighed 7 stone 10 and had (IIRC) an expanded chest measurement of 27". It is widely believed that he joined in early 1915 simply to put food on the table (and escape my g-mother, who was a bit of a tartar).

 

I suspect a concentration on the "Northern, working class slums" might be a little unfair to those living in poverty elsewhere.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

 

That’s a startlingly high figure of excess civilian deaths that you’re suggesting, voltaire60, although I admire your willingness to countenance a new approach.

 

German demographers have attributed 817,000 excess civilian deaths to the effects of blockade and attendant hardships : that alongside two million military deaths from a population of 66 million.

 

With the UK population being roughly two thirds that of Germany’s, and the fact that the British population was not subjected to the same level of starvation that was afflicted on its German counterpart, I would be surprised if excess civilian deaths in this country would have been more than 150,000...which is bad enough.  I suppose the flu pandemic complicates this.

 

Phil

 

   Could well be-  but I wonder if we can get to a truer one?   We have had in recent years data on the effects of fuel poverty on excess mortality figures (15,000 p.a.?) -so Great War stats. I suspect-realistically-are going to be comfortably into 6 figures. It is a matter of interest that in this country more seems to have been written about the excess mortality in the German civil population  than anything about the British equivalent. (I think there should be a fair amount online about this- a large number of local Medical Officer of Health reports have been digitised by the Wellcome Library- Might have a browse this arvo-better than seeing the agony of WHAM v Man City- I cry easily) 

    Another factor with regard to the impact of the Great War on the northern industrial towns (and everywhere else as well) is the impact of long-term  maimed and wounded. Stories of their presence impoverishing families between the wars are commonplace. But what are the stats.??  

 

         Steven Broomfield's  point about the rural poor is well-founded.  A revelatory book of the immediate pre-war years is Seebohm Rowntree's  survey "How the Labourer Lives"- which explored the problem that rural poor- in the middle of agricultural production-actually had a poorer diet than the urban poor- cheap food imports meant the urban poor were better fed than in the countryside. The same problem affects the historiography of Ireland during the Famine of 1847-49- just because an area produces a lot of lovely agruicultural products does not mean the local rural poor live high on the hog-if at all anywhere on the hog.

 

      Doing some local history work on the background of local casualties here in the far east of London does show that availability of food and it's regulation was perhaps the prime wartime concern-esp. of the latter years of the war. A lot of stuff in the local Press about prosecutions of shopkeepers for various breaches of the food regs. Ilford also got a chunk of publicity for setting up a market to try and ensure good fresh produce at regulated fair prices-it did not always succeed.

[Phil Wood]

A graphic - population in 5 year age groups 1911 & 1921.  Looks like Newbury was harder hit until you see the scale for Accrington 1921 - where it seems that the whole population has shrunk.  Nevertheless the prominent drop in males in their 20s in Newbury seems a more distinct casualty effect than seen up north.

 

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Phil Wood

[Interested]

Another dimension (dare I throw this into the mix?) was pension for war widows and the maimed; this might have helped support the local economy in a general sense and (sort of) set a minimum threshold for many that might otherwise have fallen below the poverty line.

I think my widowed Grandmother would have been getting 26/8 (£1.33) a week, plus ten bob for my father up to his 16th birthday.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Phil Wood said:

A graphic - population in 5 year age groups 1911 & 1921.  Looks like Newbury was harder hit until you see the scale for Accrington 1921 - where it seems that the whole population has shrunk.  Nevertheless the prominent drop in males in their 20s in Newbury seems a more distinct casualty effect than seen up north.

 

 

 

Phil - There are other ways to interpret this data. The most notable aspect is that the scale on the Accrington chart shrinks by 500 either side or a 25% contraction between each Census, so the visual image is misleading when presented as the same size.

 

Newbury: The scale ranges from -600 to + 600 on both 1911 and 1921 charts; The scale does not change between each Census

Accrington: The scales for 1911 chart ranges from -2,00 to +2,000. The scale on the 1921 chart runs from -1,500 to + 1,500. The scale has contracted by 25%.  Basically it looks as if the male population from 20 to 40 took a large hit across the board. 

 

That aside one also needs to adjust for a host of other elements such as net migration. So for example if Accrington had net inward migration between each Census this would distort the picture. Similarly if Newbury had net outward migration. One would then need to adjust the net migration by age groups etc. Boundaries often changed between each Census so it is also worth checking this hasn't distorted the picture. It is not quite as simple as comparing two sets of charts on completely different scales. 

 

Taking the 20-24 year age group for 1911 and compare to the 30-34 year age group in 1921 and see what the absolute and % changes are might be a starting point. It would be interesting to see the hard numbers. MG

 

Edit.

the 1921 Census shows the male population of Accrington had a net decline of -4.2% between 1911 and 1921

the 1921 Census shows the male population of Newbury had a net decline by -0.6% between 1911 and 1921

 

Both showed net positive births in excess of deaths however the net migration (the bizarre category where men killed during the war were recorded) shows 

 

Accrington  - 2,917 or equivalent to 6.5% of the 1911 male population

Newbury    -199 or equivalent to 1.6% of the 1911 male population

 

It simply illustrates how stats can be sometimes misleading. In this instance the net migration will include mend died as well as men emigrated and immigrated if that makes sense i.e War related deaths are only part of the equation. MG

 

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Interested said:

Another dimension (dare I throw this into the mix?) was pension for war widows and the maimed; this might have helped support the local economy in a general sense and (sort of) set a minimum threshold for many that might otherwise have fallen below the poverty line.

I think my widowed Grandmother would have been getting 26/8 (£1.33) a week, plus ten bob for my father up to his 16th birthday.

 

 

      I suspect the opposite-  pensions were less than average weekly wages, so the numbers of those on pensions probably helped to depress an area rather than sustain it. Areas with the highest of those on benefits nowadays  are not the prosperous-  just watch Channel 5 for a while-there's bound to be a documentary about it sooner or later.

There is a lot of stuff about how bad times were during the Slump- and the "means test". In part, the hardships of those  bereaved and on benefits was one of the factors that led to  the end of the Poor Laws in 1929- In that respect, Neville Chamberlain  ought to be better remembered  as one of the great reforming pioneers of the Welfare State. In addition, the capacity of the state to provide medical treatment for it's wounded and maimed-in wartime, at short notice and quite a lot of it- showed that where there was a will there was a way. ( Medical provision nationwide was part of the Poor Laws -any number of NHS hospitals are old Poor Law hospitals-my nearest-Whipps Cross is one) I would contend that the capacity of the state to build and run hospitals in wartime- the first as well as the second-was one of the causal factors of the NHS.  In that respect, to paraphrase  the good book by Paul Addison about the Second World War, it was not only "The Road to 1945" but also "The Road to 1918" The sheer volume of hospital provision within the UK at the end of the Great War  showed a Pandora's box  that had been opened.

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Interested]

Of course, average (or mean) wages is also misleading; we'd also need to know the median and the mode, in particular the mode, i.e. what were the majority earning at the time.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Guest]

The Victorians and Edwardians threw considerable resources at the problem of population and social reform. The contemporary approach  used by the pioneers of social reform to identify areas of potential poverty was to measure "overcrowding". Specifically the number of population per tenement. This was further refined to counting the number of tenements with 1 room, 2 rooms 3 room etc and also counting the numbers that occupied each of these categories of tenements. By calculation the proportion of the population who lived in one room or two room tenements the authorities could draw some observations. The Census tabulated the data by County, Urban District and Rural District. Separately the Census provided population against the number of tenements down to parish level. It was a mammoth task. For the Census of 1911 it made the following observations in the General report:  (my paraphrasing)

• Durham and Northumberland had the highest proportion of overcrowding.
• On the measure of less than 1 room per 2 people, Gateshead, South Shields, Sunderland, Newcastle upon Tyne and Tynmouth all measured over 30%. No other towns in the UK exceeded 20%. The next nearest were Plymouth (17.6%) St Helens (16.9%), Devonport 16.2% and West Ham (15.3%)
• On the measure of more than 2 occupants per room the worst counties were Durham and Newcastle. Seven towns exceeded 40% with the worst, Seghill at 46.1%
• Overcrowding in Urban Districts was higher than 20% in other parts of the country, particularly West Riding. Outside Durham, Northumberland and West Riding the next highest were: Haydock (Lancashire) 25.2%, Sedgley 20.1%, Quarry Bank 18.8%, Dawley 18.4% and Carlisle 18.1%
• In Rural districts the worst counties were Northumberland and Durham  - with Rural Easington at 37.6%. Elsewhere the worst were were Wakefield 18.2%, Halifax 17.0% Hensworth 16.2% (all West Riding)  and Langton 14.7% and Wrexham 14.4%

 

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Interested said:

Of course, average (or mean) wages is also misleading; we'd also need to know the median and the mode, in particular the mode, i.e. what were the majority earning at the time.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

     The problem with places like Accrington is that they were  towns of the first Industrial  Revolution-that of the mid-18th Century.  The Pals casualties were a factor in it's comparative decline but a far greater one was it's dependence on dated technology-  it was part of what became during the inter-war period, the "Depressed Areas".  The wartime  situation both hid the problem and exacerbated it post war- The war gave an artificial boost to it's textile industries-so that what was already a long-term decline (as with the rest of the Lancashire textile industry) became all the worse when the tonic boost of war-time orders suddenly dropped.  Lancashire textiles was a decelerating regional economy even before the war. The fact that a number of Pals battalions were in the Depressed Areas (eg Tyneside) obscures the economic fact that it was not wartime manpower  losses wot did the damage-it was  structural long-term  industrial and technological decline.

     This backs the figures on overcrowding and slums between the wars-if not before it also. The crap housing was in the first industrial areas- it was at the end of it's lifespan and the relative decline of those areas meant that the normal churn of  new housing was not as pronounced. People buy  houses or pay to have them built. They earn money to do this-  Lack of new housing is a a straight factor of decline

    If it was possible to screen out the statistical noise, it might show  that the Pals Battalions were a symptom of existing  industrial decline prevalent in 1914, rather than the cause of industrial decline post-war. The argument might run like this:

 

1) Industrial decline-eg Lancashire textiles, Tyneside shipping

2) More unemployment and  poorer wages

3)  Ergo, more men either avaialble through unemployment in 1914 or volunteering because,comparatively, wages and conditions in the army were more of a draw than in the areas of the newer industrial recolutions-those of the internal combustion engine, chemicals and electricals.

 

       Just a speculation.

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest
carp spelling

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, voltaire60 said:

1) Industrial decline-eg Lancashire textiles, Tyneside shipping

2) More unemployment and  poorer wages

3)  Ergo, more men either avaialble through unemployment in 1914 or volunteering because,comparatively, wages and conditions in the army were more of a draw than in the areas of the newere industrial recolutions-those of the internal combustion engine, chemicals and electricals.

 

       Just a speculation.

I would put it in much simpler terms: large pools of unskilled or low -skilled labour generates an 'offer bias' for recruiters. There are fewer alternatives such as good jobs that pay well and hence it was a buyer's (read recruiters) market. 

 

The Northumberland Fusiliers was the best recruited infantry Regiment in the British Army pre-war. By a very long way. MG

 

Edit. Thae tables below show the recruiting figures for K1 in the first two weeks when numbers were collated: 29th Aug and 5th Sep 1914. The 11th Northern Division had recruited five times as many men as the 10th (Irish) Div.  The weak recruiting by the 12th (Eastern) Div reflects alternative employment (the harvest).

 

The table provides some idea of where the surplus manpower was in the first months of the war. MG

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

 

      I suppose we had better crack at the unemployment rates in the Pals Battalion areas.  Are these already published in any of the Pals stuff?

[John_Hartley]

6 hours ago, QGE said:

Meaning expatriate Irishmen living in England, Scotland and Wales couldn't scoot when the MSA came into force.

In April 1916, the Cheshire Agricultural Committee discussed the problem of many Irish farm workers who had returned to Ireland so they could avoid conscription. The Chairman, a Colonel Dixon, reported that his understanding of the Act was that Irish men working in England would not be subject to conscription. The Committee decided to write to the Ministry of Agriculture asking it to publicicse this in ireland in the hope that it might persuade workers to return.

[John_Hartley]

3 minutes ago, voltaire60 said:

I suppose we had better crack at the unemployment rates in the Pals Battalion areas

I have no figures but would suggest employment was generally high. A look at the 1911 census rarely finds anyone unemployed.

 

That said, the war had certainly had a negative effect on employment at the time many of the Pals battalions were being formed in the early autumn of 1914. Factories had closed for several days after war was declared and many had found their export markets disappearing as the Germans advanced. It meant increasing numbers were laid off or on short time . It is bound to have caused something of an uplift to recruitment but I wouldnt wish to try and put figures on it. And, of course, the short time working was fairly temporary as war demand grew.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, John_Hartley said:

In April 1916, the Cheshire Agricultural Committee discussed the problem of many Irish farm workers who had returned to Ireland so they could avoid conscription. The Chairman, a Colonel Dixon, reported that his understanding of the Act was that Irish men working in England would not be subject to conscription. The Committee decided to write to the Ministry of Agriculture asking it to publicicse this in ireland in the hope that it might persuade workers to return.

 

 The term was 'ordinarily resident in Great Britain' If they were ordinarily resident in Ireland but itinerant workers in England they would be exempt. If they were ordinarily resident in England, even of Irish birth they could be conscripted. There were a myriad of ways the authorities could establish where a man was ordinarily resident.  

 

 

Edited 3 December , 2017 by Guest

[Steven Broomfield]

To be fair, the 2th (eastern Division) appears to have no problems recruiting officers.

[Guest]

  Just had a look at the Medical Officer of Health reports for the Borough of Accrington for 1914 working backwards.  Cannot see anything untoward  in the local statistics-though the low number of new houses built (136 in 1914, against a population of c.50,000) suggests stagnation.  MOH is keen to stress that the Borough is free from overcrowding and the usual epidemic diseases are bubbling along as causes of mortality - Scarlet Fever, Enteric/Typhus, TB. (For which see Anne Hardy "The Epidemic Streets- based on London MOHs-and more pungently listen to Mike Harding-"The Oldham Cowboy" about "the good old days"- acerbic but true)

 

      In respect of Accrington, there is a "Crisis Paradox" in the statistics.  There is an oft quoted statistic that 1 in 3 of those males born 1895-1900 were casualties of the war.  One perverse factor of the statistics is the improvement in child mortality statistics. In the 1890s they were a raw  20+ per 000  -By 1914, Accrington was below the national average (and that for the larger industrial towns by a click or two)- at about 12-13 per thousand  (Some deaths were not properly registered so the Accrington MOH gives an adjusted figure as well as a reported figure).

     Thus, the paradox- in the longer term , the improvement in child mortality meant that the Borough of Accrington should have been able to shrug off the losses of the war. A decline, from, 20 to 12 per thousand gives a crude figure of 400 extra surviving births per annum.  Even if one assumes a "mid-market" figure of 16 down to 12, that means across 20 years from the mid 1890s, there was an increase in surviving live births of,say,4 per thousand-in a town of c 50,000, that works out at 200 per annum, of which half would be male. Thus, from 1895 to 1914, there was an increase in surviving males of c. 2000. Thus, if one takes 1895 (20 years before the war) with 1935 ( -a rough 20 years before and after), then  the war would have had no demographic effect on the longer-term structure of the town.

 

       Whatever knackered Accrington it was  not the decimation of the Pals on 1st July 1916

[kenf48]

Having revisited this thread we seem to have rowed back from it was 'the men from the Northern slums what won the war' (when everybody knows it was the Naval blockade) to a general discussion along the lines of the helpful Monty Python sketch.  

 

Recruitment figures during the war were clearly a matter of national security, although after the war they were published in Statistics of the Military effort etc Part V but contain no 'local' geographical or socio-economic data.

 

In January 1915 during  debate in the House of Lords on reinforcements, in which it was noted the Government would have 'uncompromising opposition' to any debate on numbers Viscoun Middleton offered the following statistics which reflect the period August to November in which there were two early identified 'peaks' in voluntary recruitment in both the New Army and the TF. 

It's not clear if the noble Viscount was referring to total population or those men of military age.  He was however making the point that the highest proportion of recruits had come from industrial areas, where skilled men were most needed to support the war effort compared to agricultural areas.  Later in his speech he went into some detail as to the state of recruiting in the South of Ireland and the 'seditious opposition' to the war.  Whatever the validity of his statistics they do highlight the wide variation in voluntary recruitment in different areas of the country during this period.

 

He said:-

"The figures that I shall quote are not up to date, but they are official figures furnished to the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee. I have not had an opportunity of conferring with the Secretary of State for War, but lest he should have any desire that the numbers should not be given I propose to state simply the percentages of recruits raised per 10,000 of the population, so that there may not be any power of exact discrimination by those who read them. The figures are remarkable. From August 4 to November 4, the first three months of the war, the southern district of Scotland furnished 237 recruits per 10,000 of the population, and stands at the head of the list. Then come Warwickshire and the Midland Counties, with 196 per 10,000 of the population; next come Lancashire etc., with 178 per 10,000 of the population; London and the Home Counties, 170 per 10,000 of the population; Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland, 150 per 10,000 of the population; Cheshire and part of Lancashire and the neighbouring Welsh counties, 135 per 10,000 of the population; the North of Ireland, which, in order to avoid any sort of political 'bias, has been made to include also Dublin, Wicklow, Carlow, and Kildare, 127 per 10,000 of the population; Notts and Derbyshire, 119 per 10,000 of the population. Then I come to the agricultural counties. In the North of Scotland the number of recruits was 93 per 10,000 of the population; in the West of England, 88 per 10,000, in the East of England, 80 per 10,000; and in the South and West of Ireland, 32 per 10,000 of the population. My noble friend Lord Curzon asks me whether these numbers include promises to recruit. No, they are the figures up to November 4 of men who actually joined the Colours. They constitute an enormous body, as is well known. But the figures are subject to two qualifications. The first is that in some counties further efforts have been made, and no doubt the percentage would be disturbed; the second is that the counties which have given most liberally to the Army in the past, and especially the counties which have been drawn upon most largely for the Navy, naturally have not so large a surplus population for Lord Kitchener's New Army."

The full debate is at

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1915/jan/08/army-reinforcements#S5LV0018P0_19150108_HOL_17

 

The variations, as far as Scotland is concerned, and their extrapolation to to the UK as well as a critique of the previously posted paper by Dewey and the work of Winter are the subject of this paper which is extracted from the author's Ph.D study

 http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/pdf/lps74/article_1_coetzee_pp16-35.pdf

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

Having revisited this thread we seem to have rowed back from it was 'the men from the Northern slums what won the war' (when everybody knows it was the Naval blockade) to a general discussion along the lines of the helpful Monty Python sketch.

 

     Personally, steering clear of Monty Python allusions-if only because the evidence suggests the "Four Yorkshiremen" was nicked from Marty Feldman anyway.

 

         The debate on Northern industrial workers seems to me to have been bubbling along since the publication of "First Day on the Somme". When I was a teacher in the late 1970s and early 1980s , then local theatrical productions of Great War stuff (this is in London) were almost an embarrassment of stereotypes- clogs, shawls, braces, cobbles "appen, etc. -Though no live whippets, ferrets or pigeons were harmed in the staging of these plays.    There seems to be a stereotype that the Northern industrial towns a) provided proportionately more men  ii) Suffered proportionately greater losses  and c)  Suffered harsher  longer-terms consequences as the result of the war.  

     None of these seems to be justified.

[Guest]

One might be able to approximate proportional recruiting/conscription at least in the volunteer period. Aside from the few units that could recruit nationally (KRRC, Rifle Brigade etc) the vast majority of units raised were recruited within traditional regimental recruiting districts in 1914-15 during the volunteer period. Regimental recruiting areas are mostly congruent with administrative counties so it might be possible to se how many battalions were theoretically supported by each county and resolve this against the population.

 

it is far from perfect but I think would raise some questions. For example the fact that Lancashire and London were almost the same size but Lancashire appears to have raised more Battalions. Northumberland and Co Durham (combined) and the battalion's of the Northumberland Fusiliers and DLI seem to indicate this region provided a disproportionate number of Battalions for the population.

 

while it is impossible to even guesstimate how geographic recruiting aligned (or otherwise) with county regiments, the fact that these battalions were almost all raised before conscription might provide some proxy for relative levels of recruiting. 

 

Separately it it might be worth addressing the dynamics of local population against local industries. There seems to be a belief that the Industrial areas had to support the industrial military complex by manning factories and mines etc. And this effectively impacted the supply of men from the industrial bases meaning they were under represented in the Army. We need to be mindful of a few dynamics.

 

1. The massive number of men dischaged from the military who were still fit enough to work in factories. Over 700,000 men were discharged during the war. 140,000 were 'unlikely to become efficient soldiers' one wonders if they were equally unlikely to become efficient industrial workers. 

2. Civilians outside the age of Conscription who could still work. Effectively the civilian mobilisation of young and older men.

3. Irish immigrant labour potentially releasing men for military service. Hansard has some material on this.

4. Women in the factories who again would release men for Military service. These would presumably be in the industrial centres and therefore probably releasing men from these industrial areas.

5. Miners. When demobilisation started, ex miners were prioritised and the war diaries from Dec 1918 onward record this in detail. This suggest to me that rather a large number of miners did enlist. It would be interesting to explore how many and the impact on collieries. Presumably at least one colliery managed to keep records of its employees during the war. The Miners were just one of 19 classes of men whose demobilisation was prioritised. Collectively that were known a "Pivotal Men". 

 

Edit. SMEBE page 707 shows 220,000 miners demobilised between Armistice day and May 1920.

 

SMEBE page 708 also shows demobilization by Dispersal area. The North appears to be over represented for example The North West tally is 439,000 compared to Middlesex and London North of the Thames at 372,000 England North East is 450,000,  Surrey and London South of Thames is 129,000 and so on, England South West is 246,000, Kent and Sussex is 261,000, East Anglia just 96,000, Ireland just 83,000 etc... 

 

SMEBE might (I think) have data on the numbers exempt conscription. MG

 

Edited 4 December , 2017 by Guest

[Phil Wood]

7 hours ago, QGE said:

 

 

Phil - There are other ways to interpret this data. The most notable aspect is that the scale on the Accrington chart shrinks by 500 either side or a 25% contraction between each Census, so the visual image is misleading when presented as the same size.

 

Newbury: The scale ranges from -600 to + 600 on both 1911 and 1921 charts; The scale does not change between each Census

Accrington: The scales for 1911 chart ranges from -2,00 to +2,000. The scale on the 1921 chart runs from -1,500 to + 1,500. The scale has contracted by 25%.  Basically it looks as if the male population from 20 to 40 took a large hit across the board. 

 

That aside one also needs to adjust for a host of other elements such as net migration. So for example if Accrington had net inward migration between each Census this would distort the picture. Similarly if Newbury had net outward migration. One would then need to adjust the net migration by age groups etc. Boundaries often changed between each Census so it is also worth checking this hasn't distorted the picture. It is not quite as simple as comparing two sets of charts on completely different scales. 

 

Taking the 20-24 year age group for 1911 and compare to the 30-34 year age group in 1921 and see what the absolute and % changes are might be a starting point. It would be interesting to see the hard numbers. MG

 

Edit.

the 1921 Census shows the male population of Accrington had a net decline of -4.2% between 1911 and 1921

the 1921 Census shows the male population of Newbury had a net decline by -0.6% between 1911 and 1921

 

Both showed net positive births in excess of deaths however the net migration (the bizarre category where men killed during the war were recorded) shows 

 

Accrington  - 2,917 or equivalent to 6.5% of the 1911 male population

Newbury    -199 or equivalent to 1.6% of the 1911 male population

 

It simply illustrates how stats can be sometimes misleading. In this instance the net migration will include mend died as well as men emigrated and immigrated if that makes sense i.e War related deaths are only part of the equation. MG

 

 

I had noticed the scaling of the Acrrington graph - and hence the evident outward migration - whereas Newbury grew by 288 (2.4%) in total population 1911-1921. If you take the net fall of male population into account it shows a divergence in the male/female balance that would seem to be largely attributable to the death of 300 or so men of military age.  Accrington shows a falling population, but not the level of imbalance shown in Newbury - the shape of the graph shows this nicely. 

 

Looking at the 15-24 age group in 1911, 25-34 in 1921 Newbury shows a fall in males of 24.2% (1011 to 766) - this is obviously not entirely down to the death of men in this age group - but is must be a significant contributing factor.  Owing to the significant fall in population Accrington's figures are,  perhaps, less conclusive - but there is still a big drop in this age group, though it doesn't show so well in the graph.  On the basis of this tiny sample I see no evidence that the Northern Working Class were any worse off than their Southern counterparts - in fact I suspect they were actually better protected from death at the front by the need for their labour in the industrial effort and, perhaps, relatively lower levels of fitness meaning more were rejected by the Army.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Phil Wood said:

 

I had noticed the scaling of the Acrrington graph - and hence the evident outward migration - whereas Newbury grew by 288 (2.4%) in total population 1911-1921. If you take the net fall of male population into account it shows a divergence in the male/female balance that would seem to be largely attributable to the death of 300 or so men of military age.  Accrington shows a falling population, but not the level of imbalance shown in Newbury - the shape of the graph shows this nicely. 

 

Looking at the 15-24 age group in 1911, 25-34 in 1921 Newbury shows a fall in males of 24.2% (1011 to 766) - this is obviously not entirely down to the death of men in this age group - but is must be a significant contributing factor.  Owing to the significant fall in population Accrington's figures are,  perhaps, less conclusive - but there is still a big drop in this age group, though it doesn't show so well in the graph.  On the basis of this tiny sample I see no evidence that the Northern Working Class were any worse off than their Southern counterparts - in fact I suspect they were actually better protected from death at the front by the need for their labour in the industrial effort and, perhaps, relatively lower levels of fitness meaning more were rejected by the Army.

 

 

Curious to know the absolute and percentage drop in Accrington's 15-24 age group of 1911 when compared to 25-34 age group in 1912. 

 

The same data is available for several hundred urban districts in England and Wales and it is very difficult to spot any that don't show large negative net migration. The numbers and proportion that exactly relate to war fatalities is not shown. I am am not sure I would agree that any conclusions can be drawn as we don't have the underlying split of the net negative migration. Some but not all will be war related deaths, but as we don't have the proportion it is simply speculation. Any comparison of data on this basis simply compounds any underlying errors in the assumptions. MG.

 

[Medaler]

Don't know if these help anyone, but coal production figures in millions of tonnes per year, along with employment (in thousands).

 

Figures taken from :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-availability-and-consumption-1853-to-2011

 

Year      Tons     Employment

1913      292      1107

1914      270      1038

1915      257         935

1916      260         981

1917      252      1002

1918      231         990

1919      233      1136

1920      233      1191

 

Oh, and an observation on what might be a red herring. Ref money not being available for house building in post #63. Not an issue directly pertinent to the working class in this era as they didn't own their own houses. I have no data to back this up, but am of the opinion that home ownership amongst the working classes did not begin have any real beginning until the 30's.

 

Mike