Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

CENSUS OF EALING

1801 and 1811

(Including Old Brentford)

Middlesex, England



INTRODUCTION

Original schedules

Census dates

Area covered

Order of Entries

Statistics

  1 Population by Family, Sex and Occupation

  2 Single sex households

  3 Female tenants

  4 Named families

  5 Number of families per house

  6 Number of people per house

  7 Number of people per single-family house

  8 Names

 

Original schedules

The original schedules of the 1801 and 1811 census of the parish of Ealing (Archive nos. 85/15 and 85/16 respectively) are currently held at the Ealing Local History Centre, 103 Ealing Broadway Centre, The Broadway, London, W5 5JY, Tel. 020 8825 8194. They both consist of bound volumes, approx. 49cm (high) × 37cm, the pages of which are printed with columns and headings. The entries are hand-written in ink and are generally neat and clear. However some words appear rather feint, which makes it hard to read certain letters accurately, especially given the rather unconventional spellings of some names.

 

Census dates

1801 10th March

1811 27th May

 

Area covered

Both censuses are divided into two sections, which in 1801 (but not 1811) are prefaced ‘Ealing Upperside’ and ‘Ealing Lowerside’. From a comparison of the names in the census with those marked on An historical map of the parish of Ealing by William Nicholls, 1822, it seems that Upperside was the part of the parish to the north of what are now Little Ealing Lane and Popes Lane[1]. Lowerside, therefore, was the part south of this down to the Thames, including Old Brentford.

 

Order of Entries

The order of the entries in the 1801 schedules mostly follows that of the Poor Rate book (Archive no. 85/11) in which many of the same names appear. In this, however, they are subdivided into about twenty roads or localities, and so by comparing it with the census one could narrow down where people lived. Except for starting with the vicar, the 1811 schedules do not seem to follow any order, which would make any comparison much more difficult.

 

 

Statistics

 

Having got all the data onto a computer I decided to extract every remaining statistic I could think of which might conceivably be of interest to someone.

U = Upperside, L = Lowerside, throughout the tables.

 

1 Population by Family, Sex and Occupation[2]

These are the figures which are summarised at the end of the original schedules, but shown here also with percentages, and percentage change over the ten year period.

 

Inhabited Houses

Families

Males

Females

TOTAL

Agric

Trade etc

Other

U 1801

271

485

1039

965

2004

106

960

938

%

 

 

51.8

48.2

100.0

5.3

47.9

46.8

U 1811

298

337

973

1038

2011

252

496

1263

%

 

 

48.4

51.6

100.0

12.5

24.7

62.8

% change

10.0

-30.5

-6.4

7.6

0.3

137.7

-48.3

34.6

 
L 1801

578

897

1406

1625

3031

14

1316

1701

%

 

 

46.4

53.6

100.0

0.5

43.4

56.1

L 1811

626

947

1536

1814

3350

157

1455

1738

%

 

 

45.9

54.1

100.0

4.7

43.4

51.9

% change

8.3

5.6

9.2

11.6

10.5

1021.4

10.6

2.2

Comments

The big drop in the number of families in Upperside is puzzling. However the question as to what counted as a family was open to varying interpretations.

The huge percentage swings towards agriculture, though not involving many people, were probably caused by the 1811 census being held at the end of May—2½ months later than in 1801.

The Lowerside, which included Old Brentford, was clearly less agricultural.

  

2 Single sex households

The numbers and percentages of houses shown as occupied by one sex only are shown below.

 

Inhabited Houses

Zero Males

Zero Females

Single Sex

%

U 1801

271

21

5

26

9.6

U 1811

298

13

2

15

5.0

 
L 1801

578

34

13

47

8.1

L 1811

626

39

6

45

7.2

Comments

Curiously, of all the houses with zero males, five have a male tenant’s name, and of those with zero females, two have a female tenant’s name. In these cases one can only suppose that either the named tenant was absent on census night, or that the occupant mistakenly gave the owner’s rather than the tenant’s name.

 

3 Female tenants

The number of houses with a named tenant, and the numbers and percentages of those with a female tenant’s name are shown below.

 

Named tenants

Female

%

U 1801

270

51

18.9

U 1811

297

41

13.8

 
L 1801

578

92

15.9

L 1811

625

95

15.2

 

 

Average:

15.8

 

4 Named families

The numbers and proportions of all families represented by the named tenants are shown below. This would suggest that the surnames of about a third of the families are not listed.

 

Families

Named tenants

%

U 1801

485

270

55.7

U 1811

337

297

88.1

 
L 1801

897

578

64.4

L 1811

947

625

66.0

 

 

Average:

66.4

 

5 Number of families per house

The number of houses with a given number of families present in them is shown below.

 

Number of families per house:

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6+

TOTAL

U 1801

1

147

72

31

10

4

6

271

%

0.4

54.2

26.6

11.4

3.7

1.5

2.2

100.0

U 1811

1

264

27

5

1

0

0

298

%

0.3

88.6

9.1

1.7

0.3

0.0

0.0

100.0

% change

0.0

79.6

-62.5

-83.9

-90.0

-100.0

-100.0

10.0

 
L 1801

1

391

114

41

16

8

7

578

%

0.2

67.6

19.7

7.1

2.8

1.4

1.2

100.0

L 1811

0

413

148

39

14

8

4

626

%

0.0

66.0

23.6

6.2

2.2

1.3

0.6

100.0

% change

-100.0

5.6

29.8

-4.9

-12.5

0.0

-42.9

8.3

Comments

It is clear from the responses to this question that many were unsure as to what constituted a family. At one end of the spectrum, three houses had people but no families, and at the other end, the workhouse had one family of over 100 people! In between, some large houses with numerous servants were counted as having one family, while some smaller ones must have counted servants or lodgers as separate. There was one house[3] with seven one-person families.

The huge increase in single-family houses in Upperside 1811 is probably due to a change of interpretation by the enumerator.

 

6 Number of people per house

The number of houses with a given number of people present in them is shown below.

Number of people per house:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10–14

15–19

20–49

50+

TOTAL

U 1801

8

33

26

35

29

31

28

18

17

35

3

6

2

271

%

3.0

12.2

9.6

12.9

10.7

11.4

10.3

6.6

6.3

12.9

1.1

2.2

0.7

100.0

U 1811

2

32

44

42

25

44

24

24

17

29

8

5

2

298

%

0.7

10.7

14.8

14.1

8.4

14.8

8.1

8.1

5.7

9.7

2.7

1.7

0.7

100.0

% change

-75.0

-3.0

69.2

20.0

-13.8

41.9

-14.3

33.3

0.0

-17.1

166.7

-16.7

0.0

10.0

 
L 1801

13

67

107

91

82

72

55

30

17

34

8

2

0

578

%

2.2

11.6

18.5

15.7

14.2

12.5

9.5

5.2

2.9

5.9

1.4

0.3

0.0

100.0

L 1811

16

93

108

84

74

63

52

45

31

52

7

1

0

626

%

2.6

14.9

17.3

13.4

11.8

10.1

8.3

7.2

5.0

8.3

1.1

0.2

0.0

100.0

% change

23.1

38.8

0.9

-7.7

-9.8

-12.5

-5.5

50.0

82.4

52.9

-12.5

-50.0

0.0

8.3

The median and upper and lower quartiles[4] of the distribution are shown below.

 

LQ

Med

UQ

U 1801

4.02

6.15

8.74

U 1811

3.92

6.09

8.43

% change

-2.5

-1.0

-3.5

 
L 1801

3.61

5.13

7.03

L 1811

3.44

5.16

7.60

% change

-4.7

0.6

8.1

Comments

From these figures it is clear that the Lowerside had a greater proportion of smaller houses than the Upperside. This was no doubt due to Old Brentford being more densely built up.

 

7 Number of people per single-family house

The number of single-family houses with a given number of people present in them is shown below.

 

Number of people per single-family house:

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10–14

15–19

20–49

50+

TOTAL

U 1801

8

30

18

22

19

15

10

6

5

8

0

5

1

147

%

5.4

20.4

12.2

15.0

12.9

10.2

6.8

4.1

3.4

5.4

0.0

3.4

0.7

100.0

U 1811

2

32

43

39

22

39

19

20

14

24

5

3

2

264

%

0.8

12.1

16.3

14.8

8.3

14.8

7.2

7.6

5.3

9.1

1.9

1.1

0.8

100.0

% change

-75.0

6.7

138.9

77.3

15.8

160.0

90.0

233.3

180.0

200.0

Infinite

-40.0

100.0

79.6

 
L 1801

13

63

92

61

58

43

30

15

4

8

2

2

0

391

%

3.3

16.1

23.5

15.6

14.8

11.0

7.7

3.8

1.0

2.0

0.5

0.5

0.0

100.0

L 1811

16

89

90

62

46

37

23

21

11

16

1

1

0

413

%

3.9

21.5

21.8

15.0

11.1

9.0

5.6

5.1

2.7

3.9

0.2

0.2

0.0

100.0

% change

23.1

41.3

-2.2

1.6

-20.7

-14.0

-23.3

40.0

175.0

100.0

-50.0

-50.0

0.0

5.6

The median and upper and lower quartiles of the distribution are shown below.

 

LQ

Med

UQ

U 1801

2.96

4.79

6.88

U 1811

3.74

5.73

8.11

% change

26.4

19.6

17.9

 
L 1801

3.24

4.45

6.15

L 1811

2.98

4.19

6.18

% change

-8.0

-5.8

0.5

Comments

The purpose of this table is to attempt to show the distribution of family size. Clearly with the multi-family houses it is usually impossible to know how many members each family had. Even with the single-family houses there is still the question as to what constituted a family (see the comments to 5 above).

The U 1811 figures are rather distorted by the fact that there was a big increase in the proportion of single-family houses (see the comments to 5 above).

 

8 Names

In both censuses combined, the Christian names are given for 1394 males and 271 females. The most popular names with their frequencies are:

 

Number

%

     

 

Number

%

John

300

21.5

Mary

47

17.3

William

230

16.5

Elizabeth

42

15.5

Thomas

172

12.3

Ann

40

14.8

James

124

8.9

Sarah

32

11.8

Richard

93

6.7

Hannah

13

4.8

George

60

4.3

Susan(nah)

9

3.3

Joseph

54

3.9

Jane

8

3.0

Robert

51

3.7

Frances

8

3.0

Samuel

42

3.0

 

Similarly, surnames are listed for 1770 individuals. Although the most common is Smith, even this only occurs 24 times, representing 1.4%.

 


[1] Two borderline houses contradict this: John Hierons’ to the east of Gunnersbury House on the north side of modern Gunnersbury Lane is in Lowerside; and Mrs Ball’s at ‘Little Ealing’ on the south side of Windmill Lane just off Northfield Avenue is in Upperside.

[2] For the full column headings see the section under Transcription.

[3] 1801 U p10 no.167

[4] i.e. 25% of the houses had less than the lower quartile number of people living in them; 50% less than the median; and 75% less than the upper quartile.


Contact: jonga@aol.com

1995

Revised 1 November 2010