42 
The Census of 1891 and Rural Depopulation. 
the census of 1851 and that of 1891 was 2,952,324, and therefore 
the “ net immigration ” was some 962,614. Distributed equally 
over the four decades, the amount in each would have been 
240,653. Distributed over them in proportion to the growth 
of London, it should have been some 178,000 in 1851-60, 
213,000 in 1861-70, 257,000 in 1871-80, and 314,000 in 
1881-90. “ As a matter of fact, it was 245,679 in the decade 
1851-60, 256,791 in 1861-70, 302,121 in 1871-80, and only 
158,023 in 1881-90.” As Mr. Cannan observes, “this enor- 
mous drop is far too great to be explained away.” A sum- 
mary table of the other eight large towns exhibits a net immi- 
gration of 184,057 in the first decade, 222,161 in the second, 
157,921 in the third, and only 23,803 in the fourth. 
Nor would it appear that this diminution is counterbalanced 
by an increase of net immigration into towns of the second rank. 
Grouping the statistics of twenty-two Lancashire unions and 
Stockport, of eight West Riding unions, of the unions in Cleve- 
land and the Tees district, of those in the Potteries, and those 
in the Black Country, the figures stand thus : — An increase of 
85,891 in the first decade is followed by one of 66,969 in the 
second, of 120,263 in the third, and by an actual decrease of 
24,174 in the fourth and last. 
From the manufacturing districts Mr. Cannan passes to the 
scattered towns outside. He finds that, with the exception of 
the commercial ports, which show a steady increase of net 
immigration with each decade, the results obtained are similar 
to those reached before. Adding together the totals of all his 
tables, which include London, the other eight great towns, the 
five manufacturing districts, and seventeen minor towns, the 
net immigration is seen to have been 613,456 in 1851-60, 
620,301 in 1861-70, 695,418 in 1871-80, and 241,764 in 
1881-90. Mr. Cannan remarks that “ it requires a somewhat 
strong imagination to conceive that the inclusion of the smaller 
towns not dealt with could wipe out any considerable portion of 
the drop of four hundred and fifty thousand.” 
The figures are certainly startling, and have naturally 
attracted attention. They have been represented in some quar- 
ters as if they put the question of rural efflux out of court. 
But Mr. Cannan himself is too acute an observer to be 
betrayed into any such assertion. If the figures really justi- 
fied this conclusion, they would be open to the charge so 
frequently levelled against statistics, that “ figures will prove 
anything.” For it would be impossible to believe that the com- 
plaints raised in so many quarters of an efflux from the rural 
districts, and the significant facts supported by the observations 
