1 See Coale, Ansley J., “The Decline of Fertility in Europe from the French Revolution to World War II,” in Behrman, S.J., et. al., Fertility and Family Planning: A World View (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969)Google Scholar. Coale, A.J., “The Demographic Transition Reconsidered,” IUSSP, International Population Conference: Liège, 1973 (Liège, 1973), 1: 53-72Google Scholar. Knodel, John, The Decline of Fertility in Germany, 1871-1939 (Princeton, N.J., 1974)Google Scholar. Livi-Bacci, Massimo, “Fertility and Population Growth in Spain in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Daedalus, 97:2 (Spring 1968), 523-35Google ScholarPubMed. Livi-Bacci, M., A Century of Portuguese Fertility (Princeton, N.J., 1971)Google Scholar. Livi-Bacci, M., A History of Italian Fertility During the Last Two Centuries (Princeton, N.J., 1977)Google Scholar. Demeny, Paul, “Early Fertility Decline in Austria-Hungary: A Lesson in Demographic Transition,” Daedalus, 97:2 (Spring 1968), 502-22Google ScholarPubMed. Walle, Etienne van de, The Female Population of France in the Nineteenth Century: A Reconstruction of 82 Départements (Princeton, N.J., 1974)Google Scholar. Walle, E. van de, “Marriage and Marital Fertility,” Daedalus 97:2 (Spring 1968), 486-501Google ScholarPubMed. Walle, Francine van de, “Migration and Fertility in Ticino,” Population Studies, 29:3 (November 1975), 447-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Yasuba, Yasukichi, Birth Rates of the White Population of the United States, 1800-1860: An Economic Analysis (Baltimore, 1962)Google Scholar. Forster, Colin and Tucker, G.S.L., Economic Opportunity and White American Fertility Ratios, 1800-1860 (New Haven, Conn., 1972)Google Scholar. Okun, Bernard, Trends in Birth Rates in the United States Since 1870 (Baltimore, 1958)Google Scholar. Vinovskis, Maris, “Socioeconomic Determinants of Interstate Fertility Differentials in the United States in 1850 and 1860,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 6:3 (Fall 1976), 375-96CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Easterlin, Richard A., “Does Human Fertility Adjust to the Environment?” American Economic Review, 61:2 (May 1971), 399-407Google Scholar. Easterlin, R.A., “Population Change and Farm Settlement in the Northern United States,” The Journal of Economic History, 36:1 (March 1976), 45-75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Easterlin, R.A., “Population Issues in American Economic History: A Survey and Critique,” in Gallman, Robert E., ed., Recent Developments in Business and Economic History: Essays in Honor of Herman E. Kross, (Greenwich, Conn., 1977)Google Scholar. Leet, Don R., “The Determinants of Fertility Transition in Ante-Bellum Ohio,” The Journal of Economic History, 36:2 (June 1976), 359-78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Coale, Ansley J. and Zelnik, Melvin, New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States: A Study of Annual White Births from 1855 to 1960 and of Completeness of Enumeration in the Censuses from 1880 to 1960 (Princeton, N.J., 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 These measures are defined in Coale, Ansley J., “Factors Associated with the Development of Low Fertility: An Historic Summary,” in United Nations, World Population Conference: 1965 (New York, 1967), 2: 205-9.Google Scholar

4 Grabill, Wilson H. and Cho, Lee-Jay, “Methodology for the Measurement of Current Fertility from Population Data on Young Children,” Demography, 1 (1965), 50-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cho, Lee-Jay, Grabill, Wilson H., and Bogue, Donald, Differential Current Fertility in the United States (Chicago, 1970).Google Scholar

5 See, for example, Retherford, Robert D. and Cho, Lee-Jay, “Comparative Analysis of Recent Fertility Trends in East Asia,” IUSSP, International Population Conference: Liège, 1973 (Liège, 1973), 2:163-81Google Scholar. The East-West Center at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu has been very active in the application of these methods to census samples for developing nations.

6 Haines, Michael R., “Fertility and Occupation: Coal Mining Populations in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries in Europe and America,” Cornell University Western Societies Program Occasional Paper No. 3 (July 1975)Google Scholar. Haines, M., “Fertility, Nuptiality, and Occupation: A Study of Coal Mining Populations and Regions in England and Wales in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 7:2 (Autumn 1977)Google Scholar. Haines, M., “Fertility, Marriage, and Occupation in the Pennsylvania Anthracite Region, 1850-1880,” The Journal of Family History, 2:1 (Spring 1977), 28-55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Haines, M., “Fertility Decline in Industrial America: An Analysis of the Pennsylvania Anthracite Region, 1850-1900, Using Own-Children Methods,” paper presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, St. Louis, Mo. (April 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for example, United Nations, The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends (New York, 1973), 88.Google Scholar

8 Glass, D.V., “Changes in Fertility in England and Wales, 1851-1931,” in Hogben, Lancelot, ed., Political Arithmetic (London, 1938), 173-91Google Scholar. Charles, Enid and Moshinsky, Pearl, “Differential Fertility in England and Wales During the Past Two Decades,” in Hogben, L., ed., Political Arithmetic, 143Google Scholar. Redford, Arthur, Labour Migration in England, 1800-1850, second ed., edited and revised by Chaloner, W.H. (Manchester, England, 1964), 56-57Google Scholar. Innes, J.W., Class Fertility Differentials in England and Wales, 1876-1934 (Princeton, N.J., 1938), ch. 2Google Scholar. Hewitt, Margaret, Wives and Mothers in Victorian England (London, 1958), 40-41Google Scholar. Friedlander, Dov, “Demographic Patterns and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Coal Mining Population in England and Wales in the Nineteenth Century,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 22:1 (October, 1973), 39-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 England and Wales, Registrar General, Census of England and Wales: 1911, 13: “Fertility of Marriage,” Part II (London, 1923), civ-cviiGoogle Scholar. Great Britain, General Register Office, Census: 1951, England and Wales, “Fertility Report” (London, 1959), 207-10Google Scholar. Great Britain, General Register Office, Census: 1961, England and Wales, “Fertility Tables” (London, 1966), Table 16.Google Scholar

10 These ideas are discussed in greater detail in Michael Haines, “Fertility and Occupation,” 11-21. “Fertility, Marriage, and Occupation in the Pennsylvania Anthracite Region, 1850-1880,” 32-37. Dov Friedlander, “Demographic Patterns and Socioeconomic Characteristics,” 39-51.

11 Nef, John U., The Rise of the British Coal Industry (London, 1932), vol. 1.Google Scholar

12 A further discussion of the manuscript census may be found in the section entitled “The Sample” below.

13 See Glass, D.V., “Changes in Fertility in England and Wales, 1851-1931,” 178-79Google Scholar.

14 I_g and I_m were not calculated for 1850/52 and 1900/02 because census data on marital status by age and sex was not available for registration districts in the censuses of 1851 and 1901.

15 Glass, D.V., “A Note on the Under-registration of Births in Britain in the Nineteenth Century,” Population Studies, 5:1 (1951), 70-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Teitelbaum, Michael S., “Birth Under-registration in the Constituent Counties of England and Wales: 1841-1910,” Population Studies, 28:2 (July 1974), 329-43.Google Scholar

16 There was very little change in illegitimate fertility during this period. The index of illegitimate fertility (I_h) remained unchanged at .007 for Durham and Easington between 1850/52 and 1860/62.

17 The films may be viewed there or they may be purchased. One unfortunate aspect of using them is that the films were made by “piece numbers,” which described the position of the original manuscripts in the P.R.O. archives. There is no catalogue by place as such. The user must look up the places of interest in several annotated census volumes kept at the P.R.O. and then find the corresponding piece numbers (which are also of varying length). The piece numbers are then used for ordering films. This means that the user (or a representative) must visit the P.R.O. in person.

18 For some of the problems in defining families and households for census purposes, see 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 (Cambridge, England, 1972), 90-105.Google Scholar

19 Some examples are given in P.M. Tillott, “Sources of Inaccuracy in the 1851 and 1861 Censuses,” 90-116.

20 The number of children below age 5 present to women aged 50-54 was very small and could usefully be disregarded.

21 W.H. Grabill and Lee-Jay Cho, “Methodology for the Measurement of Current Fertility from Population Data on Young Children,” 50-73. Cho, Lee-Jay, Grabill, W.H., and Bogue, D., Differential Current Fertility in the United States, ch. 9Google Scholar.

22 The ratios were 1.0780 in 1851 and 1.0591 in 1861 for the total population. Separate corrections were not made for rural-urban populations because the ratios were so similar. Also separate corrections were not made for women of different ages because no estimation of this could be made. There is evidence that the incidence of children being absent from their mothers varies inversely with age, being highest for the youngest age groups of mothers. See Cho, Lee-Jay, Grabill, W.H., and Bogue, D., Differential Current Fertility in the United States, 320Google Scholar.

23 Taylor, A.J., “The Taking of the Census, 1801-1851,” British Medical Journal (1951)Google Scholar. Krause, John T., “Changes in English Fertility and Mortality, 1781-1850,” Economic History Review, 11 (1958).Google Scholar

24 Sargant, W.L., “Inconsistencies of the English Census of 1861,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 27 (1865), 73-124CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Farr, William, “On Infant Mortality, and on Alleged Inaccuracies of the Census,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 27 (1865), 125-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Coale, A.J. and Zelnik, M., New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States, 179-80Google Scholar.

26 For a definition of these measures, see, for example, Barclay, George W., Techniques of Population Analysis (New York, 1958), 51-55, 212-13.Google Scholar

27 Glass, D.V., “Changes in Fertility in England and Wales, 1851-1931,” passimGoogle Scholar.

28 Glass, D.V., “Changes in Fertility in England and Wales, 1851-1931,” 162Google Scholar.

29 Keyfitz, Nathan and Flieger, Wilhelm, World Population: An Analysis of Vital Data (Chicago, 1968), 520-21.Google Scholar

30 Line 7 of Table 2 indicates a higher expectation of life at birth for females in Durham and Easington for 1851/60 than for England and Wales in 1861. On the other hand, the Durham and Easington life tables show higher female mortality for the childbearing ages 20-49 than for the 1861 English/Welsh table presented in Keyfitz and Flieger, World Population, 520.

31 Glass, D.V., “Changes in Fertility in England and Wales, 1851-1931,” 179, 182-83Google Scholar.

32 Keyfitz, N. and Flieger, W., World Population, 520Google Scholar.

33 These numbers are very large in relation to TFR’s because inflation factors must be introduced to adjust the rates for younger age groups. Since the notion of a fertility rate is to relate births to an approximation of person years at risk, it is quite apparent that the number of married females aged 15-19, for example, overstates the number of person years actually at risk because most were not married for the full five years. The same is true for married females age 20-24 and, to a much lesser extent, 25-29. Some correction must be applied to the age specific ratios of legitimate births to married women in order to deflate the denominator of the ratio (and hence inflate the ratio) to compensate for the fact that women averaged less than five person years at risk during that age interval. Procedures to do this are outlined in Cho, Grabill, and Bogue, Current Differential Fertility in the United States, 343-48.

34 It is not known who is going to marry, as opposed to who has married, a farmer, merchant, miner, etc.

35 Armstrong, W.A., “The Use of Information About Occupation,” in Wrigley, E.A., ed., Nineteenth Century Society, 203.Google Scholar

36 Armstrong, W.A., “The Use of Information About Occupation,” 209-11Google Scholar.

37 See, for example, Innes, J.W., Class Fertility Differentials in England and Wales, ch. 2Google Scholar.

38 Anderson, Michael, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, England, 1971), 25-29 and ch. 4, note 23.Google Scholar

39 Haines, M., “Fertility, Marriage, and Occupation in the Pennsylvania Anthracite Region, 1850-1880,” Table 4Google Scholar.

40 Haines, M., “Fertility and Occupation,” 18-21Google Scholar. Friedlander, D., “Demographic Patterns and Socioeconomic Characteristics,” 47-50Google Scholar.

41 See, for example, Notestein, Frank W., “Economic Problems of Population Change,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Agricultural Economists (London, 1953).Google Scholar

42 For details see, for example, U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Methods and Materials of Demography by Shryock, Henry S., Siegal, Jacob S., and Associates (Washington, D.C., 1971), 433-46.Google Scholar

43 Keyfitz, N. and Flieger, W., World Population, 520Google Scholar.